Whitehall Watchblog

For those who may have missed them the first time or to reintroduce them to those who saw them previously, I offer some of my more important letters I wrote to the editors of the Whitehall News.

This one, a year before I ran for office and five years after beginning my fight, is from January 2014. It was entitled;

‘City leader’s salaries separate them from low-wage hoi polloi‘

To the Editor,

Mayor Kim Maggard says the city needs (financially) to be as competitive as possible to keep a high-quality staff and yet filled those positions without competition, placing friends or those already at City Hall in jobs, some of whom didn’t even meet the criteria or could be considered as most qualified.

Councilman Wes Kantor, in nodding agreement with the mayor’s beliefs, and Councilman Robert Bailey, making justifications for pay raises he sees as competitive, rubber-stamped approval for the mayor’s selections despite her lack of a competitive search. She ignored the best we could afford in favor of cronyism and patronage. All of those agreed to and passed by the people’s watchdogs, our council, with Bailey and Kantor smoothing her way.

According to statistics of income in Whitehall at City-Data.com, our Development Director will earn 77%  more than what Whitehall’s average wage-earners take in.

The IT director, mayor, auditor, city attorney, human resources director and service director’s salaries will be higher than 87% of our wage earners. Even the code enforcement officer is paid more than 70% of what wage earners living in Whitehall make. This puts them in the echelon with Whitehall’s top third wealthiest residents. This in a city where a full two-thirds of residents make less than $60,000 a year, with three-fourths of those making less than $30,000. These raises are not in correlation to what residents receive in the private sector nor is a true reflection of the residents income level.

This inequity is why I strenuously disagree with Bailey’s assertion that salary increases are not extravagant. With this kind of self-serving political avarice, it seems the reason some at City Hall build tax revenue is not so residents can enjoy a higher quality of life but rather to build that for themselves–that which removes them from the reality in which the majority of residents they serve live.

Gerald Dixon

What good is it to have free speech to redress your governmental representatives over grievances within government if they make a concerted effort to not listen in the first place? For example, here is a list that, as a citizen, I’ve implored City Hall and Council to listen to and take into account;

• I asked Mayor Wolfe for an apology after his Development Director threw a book back at me after presenting it to him for consideration. The mayor offered only silence.
• I presented the Council with evidence of code enforcement abuse by several citizens detailing the events, which included a bucket truck taking photos over a citizens fence. Council did nothing to inquire, investigate or register any sort of displeasure over these incidents.
• After Whitehall compiled a Strategic Initiative to address several issues for Whitehall’s future, I felt it begged several questions that arose out of concern for sense, reason and logic. When I questioned council about several items, I got no response and was essentially ignored.
• In 2009, when a website was included in the City Guide, funded by tax dollars, that undermined the character of Councilperson Jacquelyn Thompson, it made of the guide a tax-funded political tool. Due to this, I registered my concerns and alarm with City Council asking for an investigation and accountability of this heinous act of political shadiness. The Mayor wouldn’t return my calls and the council did nothing.
• I told them about a pattern of abuse with code enforcement harrassing a senior citizen and veteran, pleading for their attention for Dave Deluca. Outside of Councilman Kantor saying he’d talked with Mr. Deluca, nothing was done. He ultimately left Whitehall, fed up, dispirited and broke.
• When I spoke of code enforcement coming up onto my property 54 feet to turn and photograph license plates, without my permission or a warrant, a clear violation of the 4^th Amendement, while Councilman Dan Miller did come to my house and spoke with me, he nevertheless justified their behavior by asking if I’d had ‘No Trespassing’ signs up when this happened. Other than this, nothing was ever done, either by mayoral administrations or my representatives on council.
• When I expressed my dismay in not getting to take the city’s telephone survey regarding the Strategic Initiative, a councilman replied, “Too bad”.
• When Kim Maggard ran for Mayor in 2011, I asked her 6 pointed questions in regard to unethical and bad behavior of some at City Hall. I wanted clarification in her views on these matters and what we could expect of her in this area with her mayoral administration. I supplied copies of my questions to her and the press. She never answered them.
• When events and tales surfaced from residents regarding former Service Director Ray Ogden’s alleged behavior, which included cursing at citizens, trespassing on property, using Service Department trucks and personnel to pull his car out of the snow and mud and tussling with employees of a local business (which he eventually pleaded down to disorderly conduct and was found guilty), the citizen’s representatives never spoke up in defense of or for the citizens they’re supposed to be representing.
• After exhaustive work I’d done to deal with massive trucks coming across Doney Street (which included talks with a representative at Anheuser-Busch in St. Louis) as well as being denied a ‘No-Thru Trucks’ sign, I finally got Councilman Rodriguez to help me fashion legislation to address this problem. After writing it together and submitting it to the City Attorney’s office, it became like pulling teeth trying to get answers out of them. Finally I demanded an answer from City Attorney Mike Shannon whether it was fine or not. He agreed as to its form. When Mr. Rodriguez took no initiative in moving it along, I told Council it was going to be introduced at the next meeting, which seemed to surprise him. At that meeting the next week, Mayor Maggard and the Assistant City Attorney Matt Roth argued stringently against it, essentially saying that if anyone suggests a truck weighs more than an allotted amount, the police would have to call in a special weight scale and hours would go by waiting for it and Whitehall just doesn’t have the time or manpower to do that, essentially making all truck routes legislation pointless and opening up free rein for all trucks to go anywhere at anytime. So, Councilman Rodriguez caved ending the discussion with, “does anybody have anything else?” No one else even tried to defend the legislation, come up with alternatives or in the least fight for the citizens rights or quality of life. Business 1st, citizens 2nd.
• When I photographed code officers on property without aid of permission or a warrant and after a futile meeting with Mayor Maggard on the topic, I implored my council representatives to enact a moratorium on code enforcement until the Mayor can start respecting the law and the citizens. During a council committee meeting it was Councilperson LaCorte who tried to tackle the issue. She was met with obfuscation, minimization and misinformation mostly by Council President Jim Graham, Councilperson Bob Bailey and Mayor Maggard, abetted by Councilperson Wes Kantor and then-Service Director Ray Ogden. They kept unprofessionally interrupting Ms. LaCorte, derailing her train of thought, changing topics, introducing irrelevant topics, minimizing and obfuscating her concerns and directions and unabashedly praising Ray Ogden and the code officers. With the exception of Ms. LaCorte, none of the others on council or in the administration honored my concerns and requests with the consideration that the weight and gravity of the code officers actions deservedly invited. Apparently, 4^th amendment be damned. (That which the council representatives swore an oath to support)
• Recently there have been a number of people who represent the Woodcliffe condominiums coming to council meetings. In them they have spoken of Whitehall spending upwards of 1.5 million dollars of taxpayer money to pursue nuisance violations with the condos. They also spoke of missing emails the city can’t find that are pertinent to the case, which we’ve not heard about since the complaint (And Whitehall with three I.T. people!) When I questioned the Mayor and City Attorney about this they said the figure is actually closer to half a million taxpayer dollars (!). I asked the council to investigate the matter as per their right under the City Charter. Because Mr. Shannon is always reminding them of the secrecy they are beholding to under ‘Executive Session’ and threatening that their speaking might result in a lawsuit to the city, they remained as silent as a corpse. They then (outside of Council President Graham offering up his feelings on the matter with no official paper trail investigation) naturally did nothing to investigate what I feel is the City of Whitehall essentially stealing others property by incessant nuisance laws for some secret self-aggrandizing ‘vision’ instead of paying them a fair price, that which the city really doesn’t have the money for. It doesn’t matter though what citizens, home owners and property owners who try to do the right thing accomplish, despite what Mayor Maggard says. If they stand in the way of whatever this unspoken, unformed, inorganic, disrespectful ‘vision’ the mayor and city attorney foist on those in the community, they are manhandled and abused and harrassed by the governmental beuracracy of the code division, Magistrate’s court and the convoluted red tape of the law. We don’t even have recreational opportunities for the kids but Woodcliffe is apparently a priority over that. Doesn’t the council have the right to express their opinions and/or deny the city attorney’s office when he comes to council to approve more money for legal fees? I mean where is their political courage and championing for the people? Apparently their defense for those they’re supposed to be representing takes a backseat to the desires of Mayor Maggard and the city attorney. That’s beyond reproach

Here is what the deal is; this is a group of people who don’t want to address citizens concerns and complaints and most certainly not if it involves their standing up for them against their friends on council or requires more than a slice of their time. For instance; there were concerns about the videos for the council meetings not being put up or that some had no sound. If your aim is to have transparency in government and you spend the taxpayer’s money to install all kinds of cameras and recording devices and pay three IT people to install, upgrade and maintain these devices and then there constantly seem to be issues with the videos either appearing on the city website or even having sound, not only is that embarrassing in this day and age but it should absolutely be enough to motivate any councilperson to voice their concern and inquire and investigate for the sake of the citizens they’re supposed to be there defending and watching out for. Yet, no one does. Except Leslie LaCorte, of course. This is from the meeting where the basketball legislation was introduced. Lori Elmore and her husband Clint speak against the legislation and yet, it was passed by all but Leslie LaCorte. There is no sound to hear what any of them say…

Why aren’t they looking out for you? Why aren’t they speaking up as your representatives when things are not right? They’re not your champions, thats why. If being your champion means spending more than a simple amount of time or speaking out against their friends/donors (or speaking out at all) they’re apparently not going to make that effort. It shows perfectly what their aims are and its not really you, your rights or interests. This technology is there for the people, for their convenience and for transparency to witness what is being done in their name. (It should be done for council committee meetings too) Also, because of their untrustworthy behavior, ala the many conflicts of interest I’ve supplied you with that they’ve ignored, it makes it difficult to trust that some of these supposed technological snafus weren’t as a result of them not wanting the video to be seen or heard. They say the transcript is available but it is not a verbatim telling of the meeting and certainly doesn’t include every word, body language, gesture, etc. If they’re up to something or do or say something that sheds an unsavory or negative light on them, a convenient excuse of ‘the machine isn’t working’ keeps them from the rightful trouble that they should receive if they’re doing wrong, plain and simple. Because they themselves have ignored the conflicts of interest (knowing better too) that builds public trust in them, I say we can’t trust them when it comes down to things like this.

Now, if they are this hesitant and reticent and unmoving and stubborn and unyielding and unhelpful and unchampioning and silent in their reactions and actions towards citizens who make rightful demands and inquiries for the sake of the citizens and community, what makes you think they’re going to be any different now were you to vote them in again? Seriously, this is a question that is vital to ask yourself before you vote for any one of them come November 3^rd. You cannot ask to represent the citizens and then not serve and champion them to the utmost of your ability.

As for myself, all of the above (and much, much more) was accomplished and strove for long before I urged you to vote for me. I was, am and will always be a champion of right and of the people. As a private citizen or public official, my record is right there. As well, I fought valiantly as a person with little or no power against some pretty powerful people, all in the face of harassment, intimidation, character assault and fear of monetary reprisal, and why? Because they were doing wrong and I thought that was awful. I risked myself for no more grand or personal stake than because they were doing the wrong thing, to myself and others, and I’m a firm believer in standing against wrong. There will be three seats available for Council at-Large, I hope you’ll believe in me as strongly as I believe in you and City Hall doing right by you and elect me to one of them come Nov. 3^rd. Thank-you.

Looking at campaign financial reports as submitted by various of our elected officials, I was able to retrieve a few, and so I poured over them to see and consider the patterns they contained. By the time I went to dinner, I was exhausted, frustrated and dis-spirited about serving in Whitehall’s City Hall. Not about serving the citizens mind you but serving within a group of people who don’t understand elementary ethics, conflicts of interest and how much they matter.

After examination and comparisons and writing so much down, I decided to set it down for you for your own consideration. It’s not pretty.

MY EFFORTS TO RIGHT WRONGS

For the past several years I’ve been trying to get Council and both the Wolfe and Maggard administrations to do something about bad policy, corruption and blind, unethical leadership within Whitehall City Hall. The list of said offenses is too numerous for this post, that which I’ve detailed in Council chambers, in Letters to the Editor (both Dispatch and Whitehall News) spoken to reporters, written letters, distributed fliers and protested on street corners in blazing heat, all of which has been to no avail. It is one thing if the mayoral administrations arrogantly ignore my charges, it is quite another for my representative voices in government, the Council, to do so as well. (Which is what makes this all so wrong.) Outrageously, I am met with mostly stony silence, mockery, minimization, marginalizing and an unwillingness to address my concerns, despite (really, due to) the merit of the charges I leveled at them. Those they don’t want exposed and/or were outraged I’d publicly brought forward and which regard, not the citizen’s Mayor or Council but rather, their ‘friends’ and close associates. This is why, for some time now, I’ve spoken out on what I felt was a group of people, political insiders, some of whom weren’t necessarily or always looking out for citizens but rather their own selfish agendas, some of which even hurt the citizens. All done so by watching each others backs and helping each other get or stay elected. This is why I have sardonically labeled them ‘The Family’.

‘THE FAMILY’

It has been my observation that if you are not a member of this clique, this status quo here in Whitehall, in particular those who are vocally opposed to them, then you are ignored, minimized and marginalized, despite any right or good your truth brings. The rule seems to be, if you aren’t one of them then all you have to do to be one is agree with them and never call them out on anything they do wrong or are responsible for, and in particular, never publicly. Cheer-leading them and each other is a vital component of membership. (If the ones in charge keep gushing that everyone and everything is swell then it must be true!) If you are or do become a member and want to stay one, then keep your trap shut about fellow ‘members’, saying little to nothing of significance or “controversy” (i.e.- things that shed a negative light on them). This will keep everyone on the same page, continue to get like-minded members appointed, elected and re-elected with as little fuss as possible, keeping our government all for themselves, no ‘intruders’ allowed. This is all done for what I can only figure (not being a member myself) as keeping an iron grip on power to fulfill their personal agendas with their needs, wants and visions over those of the actual citizens’ (regardless of whether it breaks or skirts the law, respects citizens or their rights or the democratic process itself). They have gotten a stranglehold on our representative government as well as its offices. They give to each other, have well-paying jobs within the government (for the most part) and use their money to perpetuate their self-serving places in power. Here are just a few examples;

• Despite term limits being put into place in our City Charter, that which the citizens have unanimously affirmed, reaffirmed and reaffirmed again (that which both City Attorney Mike Shannon and Mayor Kim Maggard angled to end in 2014, each spending $300 on a campaign to defeat term limits.) Councilman Chris Rodriguez has been on Council so long I’ve lost count of the exact amount of years. Through appointments, elections to Ward One then at-Large it has been many more than the two terms (eight years) suggested by the Charter. They get around this with running for different types of council seats. Since council seats are staggered, ‘Wards’ one year then ‘at-Larges’ two years later, if they allow their seat to expire they have to wait another two years before they can run again and they’re afraid to let loose of their power and maybe not get back in in two years. This is why they run for a different council seat halfway through the one they’re elected to. Councilman Bob Bailey was appointed and then used the power he was simply given to run as an incumbent for Ward One (which gave him the advantage). Then, two years in, he ran for at-Large where he won and now he’s running again for at-Large. The point is, they keep playing musical chairs with their positions so they can skirt the spirit of our City Charter and keep their hands on the power.

• During John Wolfe’s 2007 mayoral run, (according to his finance reports) then Councilperson Zach Woodruff donated a total of $1600 to his campaign. While still on council, councilperson Woodruff was offered a position within the city as Community Affairs Coordinator by none other than the newly elected mayor John Wolfe himself. Councilman Woodruff then resigned his position on council and took the job within City Hall where he has since been appointed to better and greater positions; Development Director, Public Safety Director. (Filling out an application for the position of Community Affairs Coordinator, Mr. Woodruff listed his references as; John Wolfe, Kim Maggard and then President of Council Brent Howard. In that list of references he characterized his relationships with them as “Friend”.)In Ohio ethics law it forbids public officials from seeking employment or benefiting from an agency while on its board. They also cannot profit from a contract that was authorized by a governing body while they were a member for a year after leaving office. Mr. Woodruff was on the council when it created and set the salary for the community affairs position, that position he was offered by John Wolfe and which he took less than a year after leaving office*. Councilperson Cindy Stewart took a job as executive secretary in Kim Maggard’s Auditor’s office just two days after leaving council and was later made executive secretary for the mayor by Kim Maggard. This taking of jobs so quickly after being on Council was sufficiently alarming to Councilperson Jacquelyn Thompson to file complaints against them with the Ohio Ethics Commission. In a Dispatch article from the time, Councilperson Thompson said, “It just outraged me. I’d never seen City Council members just jump right into jobs with the city.”

  The Ohio Ethics Commission does not reveal the results of the investigation’s findings but that doesn’t prevent citizens from inquiring what the results were. When Mr. Woodruff and Ms. Stewart were given even better positions within the city by the newly elected Mayor Maggard, having never heard of the Ethics Commission’s findings regarding the complaints, I only felt it fair that if these two former councilpersons continued to be promoted and rise in position within City Hall, the citizens should have access and understanding about the truth regarding this matter, specifically before we proceed nonstop with the promotions. So then, I pressed them to reveal to the public the findings of the Commission. Neither did. City Attorney Mike Shannon chimed in during this council meeting and said that Woodruff and Stewart are private individuals and deserve their right to privacy and used chilling words as a threat in response to my inquiry. I quote Mr. Shannon, “I would be reticent to talk anymore further about this publicly because there is the possibility of litigation and its been the policy of this council when talking about personnel matters to do so in executive session.” While the complaints and the Commissions findings are not criminal in nature and the Ethics Commission have their reasons for not revealing the findings, there is nothing wrong in citizens asking what they were. (Honestly, you’d think if indeed they were exonerated of ethics law violations, they’d be shouting it from the rooftops as solid proof of the wrong of the ‘evil’ Jackie Thompson’s charges.) These were two public figures doing things in a fashion that was questionable as elected officials, per Ohio ethics law, and when this private citizen, who has every right to make inquiries regarding these matters, did so regarding the outcome of the investigation (which they don’t have to answer) Whitehall’s City Attorney erroneously suggested these public figures had a right to privacy from public inquiries being made in regard to possible misconduct carried out by them in a public capacity. His threatening tone then intimidated and quashed a citizen’s rightful inquiry into possible wrongdoing.

  Ultimately Ohio Ethics law was skirted because their bosses, Mayor John Wolfe and then-Auditor Kim Maggard insisted it was themselves who enticed them into taking the jobs, not Woodruff and Stewart ingratiating themselves. The commission itself advised officials that they could avoid these sort of problems if they simply withdrew themselves from discussions about the positions or were approached with offers they didn’t solicit. But, they didn’t. The spirit of the ethics law was conveniently turned a blind eye to by all parties who stood to gain by doing so, instead of heeding conflict of interest and personal, ethical principals for the people of Whitehall and doing the right thing in the first place. That which all of them had the opportunity to exercise but which none of them chose to support and demand of themselves. That was wrong.

• During the 2011 Mayoral race, there came a ‘Candidates Forum’, officially an arena for the candidates to be asked questions and for the public to see and hear them before making decisions. Underneath, it was a massive conflict of interest driven by the presence and participation of several colleagues, family and associates within their circles. It was sponsored by The Whitehall Democratic Club and the Whitehall Area Chamber of Commerce. Kim Maggard, the mayoral candidate, had served as the Vice-President on the Chamber of Commerce and her husband was the then-President of the Democratic Club. Candidate Karen Conison was or had been their Secretary, Councilman Jim Graham, who was a part of the WDC, ran the light/time cues that night along with several other WDC denizens who helped run the the event. Kim Maggard herself was or had been their Treasurer! So, the obvious conflicts which had the power to wield favorably for Kim Maggard and Karen Conison (as well present their opponents in an unfavorable light) were all there, despite any and all protestations regarding their innocence over possible bias. The conflict of interest for Kim Maggard and Karen Conison was as apparent as Mount Everest and yet, two intelligent people like them couldn’t see it? Baloney. As a matter of fact, the WDC then later ran a photo of candidate Maggard and the empty seat of her opponent Chris Parkevich on their Facebook page propagandizing for the campaign of Kim Maggard, showing Chris Parkevich in a bad light. (For the record, Chris Parkevich did not show because of the utter conflict of interest in the mounting of this ‘candidates forum’. Leslie LaCorte came but sat in the audience) Regardless, despite my very verbal and public protestations about the inherent and painfully obvious conflicts of interest for the event, neither Kim Maggard nor Karen Conison heeded them for the sake of the public trust which is vitally important for the solidity and integrity of our government. Instead, they selfishly chose what benefited themselves over what was right for the citizens, ironically then, undermining the very trust they were asking for of the citizens in this forum.

• When code officers were photographed on private property without a warrant or permission, I confronted Council with this evidence, including the Supreme Court’s decision regarding code officers, ‘Camara v Municipal Court’, and while it was Leslie LaCorte who actually took the time to address my charges and question the Mayor and then Service Director Ray Ogden, it was Councilpersons Bailey and Kantor, President of Council Jim Graham and the Mayor herself who obfuscated and minimized the issue and unabashedly gushed over Ray Ogden and Code Officers Walt Sural and Ray Hamby. They ganged up on Councilperson LaCorte to the point that she eventually gave in to their overwhelming push-back.

THE TALE OF THE TAPE

Here then is the round-robin donation carousel that helps keep some of them in power with little hope for anyone other to scale the high castle walls they’ve built who are not part of this circle. Their tale is truly in the ‘who’ and in the ‘how much’. This matters. Here are the names then, these are some but not all the players.

John Wolfe, former Mayor

Kim Maggard, former Auditor, current Mayor

Mike Shannon, City Attorney

Bob Bailey, Council

Wes Kantor, Council

Chris Rodriguez, Council

Karen Conison, Council

Van Gregg, Council

Jim Graham, President of Council

Brent and/or Rhonda Howard, City Treasurer and former School Board member

Zach Woodruff, Former Councilman & current Director of Development and partial Public Service Director

Chuck Underwood, Safety Director

Larry Morrison, Council

Cheryl Jo Thompson, Leader of Issue 32, the Jackie Thompson Recall Effort

Dan Miller, Auditor

Sean Maxfield, Whitehall Mayor’s Court Magistrate

Ray Ogden, Former City Public Service Director

Steve Quincel, Candidate for City Treasurer

Katie Quincel, Parks & Recreation Commission Member, appointed by Mayor Maggard

Here are the people, who gave to them and how much:

Donated to Councilman Bob Bailey:

Wes Kantor $400.01

Jim Graham $100

Van Gregg $60

Cheryl Jo Thompson $50

Ray Ogden $50

John Wolfe $500!

Brent & Rhonda Howard $250

When I brought in the four-page flier detailing John Wolfe’s corruption, Councilman Bailey was completely silent on the matter. Where were his feelings for the victims of John Wolfe’s corruption, the citizens? Do you think his monetary ties to John Wolfe had anything to do with his telling silence?

Donated to Former Mayor John Wolfe:

Zach Woodruff $1600

(note: John Wolfe spent $9204.05 to get elected. Nearly a fifth of the entire amount came from Councilperson Woodruff alone. Later, when I made inquiries about the tax dollar-funded city guide promoting a website in it which degraded the character of Councilperson Thompson, the guides author and focus of an ethics complaint filed by Jacquelyn Thompson; Mr. Woodruff, told me the Mayor asked him to refer my concerns/questions to him, which I did. Mayor Wolfe never returned my calls or answered my rightful inquiries.

Donated to Auditor Dan Miller:

Kim Maggard $350

Karen Conison $20

Jim Graham $20

Van Gregg $75,

Katie Quincel $50

(note: Dan Miller shows a total of $8146.55 in expenditures on his campaign finance reports for City Auditor.)

Donated to Councilperson Chris Rodriguez:

Wes Kantor $100,

Bob Bailey $100

Jim Graham $25

Brent and/or Rhonda Howard $202

Donated to President of Council Jim Graham:

Bob Bailey $100

Candidate for Auditor Michael Bivens:

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 his reputation 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 rightfully so.

Donated to Councilman Van Gregg:

Kim Maggard $100

Cheryl Jo Thompson $100

John Wolfe $250

Brent and/or Rhonda Howard $100

Bob Bailey $60

Wes Kantor $35

Donated to City Attorney Mike Shannon:

Ray Ogden $35

Wes Kantor $75

Jim Graham $35

Van Gregg $50

Brent and/or Rhonda Howard $200

Chuck Underwood $150

Bob Bailey $60

Chris Rodriguez $25

( note: In Mike Shannon’s financial statements it shows he spent a whopping $11,804.03 to get elected City Attorney of Whitehall Ohio. Whew!)

Donated to Mayor/Auditor Kim Maggard: (totals before 2015)

Mike Shannon $200

Wes Kantor $128

Brent and/or Rhonda Howard $228

Chuck Underwood $306

Dan Miller $250

Karen Conison $153

Jim Graham $175

Van Gregg $150

Cheryl Jo Thompson $200

Bob Bailey $130

Steve Quincel $200

Katie Quincel $350

Sean Maxfield $600

Ray Ogden $150

John Wolfe $50

(note: Aside from these, Mayor Maggard also donated $250 to State Representative Heather Bishoff. She also spent a total of $5474.47 to get elected. Her opponent, Chris Parkevich, spent $879.)

Donated to Councilperson Karen Conison:

Kim Maggard $400

(note: When running, if a candidate doesn’t spend more than $2000, they don’t have to file a campaign finance report. This is probably why I couldn’t find financial reports on Councilperson Conison or LaCorte. In the Mayor’s reports though I was able to find this amount to Karen.)

Donated to ‘Issue 32’, the Effort to Recall Councilperson Thompson led by Cheryl Jo Thompson:

John Wolfe $500

Kim Maggard $100

Brent and/or Rhonda Howard $100

Mike Shannon $150

Jim Graham $50

Cheryl Jo Thompson $135

Anonymous donation $120

(note: 79% of the overall donations to this cause are, or could be viewed as, political. Notice that all three people who Councilperson Zach Woodruff listed as ‘friend’ on his application for Community Affairs Coordinator; Wolfe, Maggard and Howard, donated money to recall Councilperson Thompson, the one who’d filed ethics complaints against their ‘friend’. This was a retaliatory political maneuver, not, by any stretch of the imagination, a citizens revolt and that is what made it so loathsome.)

Under ordinary circumstances, who donated to whom is not necessarily a measure of some sort of corruption. However, when it is back and forth donations like these among public officials, some of whom won’t listen to sense and reason, heed conflicts of interest which bolster the public’s trust of them, allow code enforcement to be wielded as an authoritarian, controlling political tool and won’t respond to citizens requests and needs that speak out against their worrisome behavior who aren’t a part of this donation pattern, that is absolutely, without question, wrong. It is unfair, unethical and works against the processes of our representative government, those processes which were set in place for the people not themselves. That is why this round-robin donation carousel is a problem for Whitehall’s governance. When some do as they please and are never held accountable, through public demand and their own complicit silence, it is a betrayal to our system of government and the United States of America.

Frank L. Stanton said, “The closed door and the sealed lips are prerequisites to tyranny.” When Councilman Bailey submits legislation regarding portable basketball hoops over the weekend, which they then pass on Tuesday with little or no opportunity for response from the citizens, that is not acting on behalf of or for the citizens themselves. In that I have to agree with Mr. Stanton.

Ultimately, the truth of some of them is this; while scruples and ethics are all fine and good, if they get in the way of their interests (which sometimes hurts the city and citizens themselves) they then must be ignored and cast aside. They take actions which are untrustworthy then, unashamedly, ask the citizens to trust them in the area of the Public Trust. Then, when troublesome, unlawful or unethical behavior is exposed, and those responsible should be rightly held accountable, they are not. They remain silent in the face of charges, refusing to answer to them, believing that if you never admit to the wrong then you will never be found guilty of it. (and certainly without some organized public accountability, they never are.) They wait for the day this exposure disappears and voters forget all about it. Their viewpoint seems to be, as I’ve heard in a fashion twice from Mayor Maggard is; ‘We’re not going to listen to you unless you take us to court’. Doing the right thing in the first place doesn’t steer them, expensive litigation, which the majority of Whitehall residents can’t afford, does. It is an all-out assault against the citizens and their rights. I’m sick and tired of government officials in Whitehall breaking or skirting the law and then requiring the citizens to jump through difficult and expensive legal hoops to set it right when if they’d actually used sense, reason and respect for the citizens and law, it never would’ve been wronged in the first place. Some of those in office try to get away with as much as possible without going to jail (while others silently look away) but they’re messing with the law and incrementally taking away citizens rights and making their lives more difficult and lesser in the process. Its appalling and utterly unacceptable.

Sadly as well, you would think with all these varied individuals and personalities among them that not all of their ethics could be so corrupted or that they would all turn such a blind eye to wrong being perpetrated. That, merely out of duty to right and Whitehall itself, they’d actually speak up, but tellingly, I have heard none of them do so. Perhaps they fear being recalled by themselves or becoming persona non grata. Regardless of why, the fact that they never speak out against wrong makes them, and everyone else that doesn’t, complicit in every single rotten thing that’s done to the citizens or in their name and which taints every cent of their money, that which keeps fueling and propping up this inbred corrupt system. They push their friends agendas, repel any comers who would upset their apple cart and just keep donating and scratching each others backs to the true detriment of Whitehall and its citizens. Praying, hoping and betting that you’ll never wake up and certainly never pay attention to the likes of an awful dog like me or actually read what I write. They are afraid you’ll read a piece of truth and then two people will know, then three and so on. Then, maybe then, you’ll actually stand up and demand the right thing is done in your name. Then perhaps this ugly degradation of our representative government and the democracy itself will stop. Until then, this is the awful state of affairs that we have posing as our government in Whitehall Ohio. They duped you into believing it was Jacquelyn Thompson who was the real and only and largest problem in Whitehall, and while her bedside manner was prickly and difficult, the problem that she represented was in actuality tiny when set next to the real problem and actions that are being enacted and forced on you by your government down at City Hall. It is a controlling, authoritarian hijacking of your affairs, allowed by you mind you, and it is outrageous and intolerable.

In a Dispatch article dated Oct. 5, 2008 titled, ‘2 ex-council members hit with ethics complaint‘, it states; ‘Woodruff was on the council when it created and set the salary for the Community Affairs Coordinator post he now holds**. The mayor appointed him to the job and he resigned from the council. Woodruff’s job is to write grants, perform community outreach and act as a community liason with the public and media. “He’s doing fantastic,” Mayor John Wolfe said. ‘Woodruff was the first person to hold the position after a similar job***, occupied by Linda Luft Jones, was cut in spring 2007****. Woodruff had pushed to cut the position, after a recommendation by an independent company that reviewed the city’s staffing in 2006. The council created a new position, but Jones did not meet the degree requirements and her salary would have been cut.’ “I find it peculiar that the same member of Whitehall Council who played a leading role in eliminating that position (was) hired for the newly created position that included markedly similar duties,” said Jones’ attorney, Gregory Finnerty. Woodruff recommended keeping the position vacant for six months to save money. Nothing was heard of the job again until Woodruff announced in December that the newly elected mayor Wolfe had made him a proposition. “I was approached,” Woodruff said. “I didn’t solicit the position.”

**(Ordinance # 21-07 amended March 6, 2007)

***(131.04 Resource Coordinator)

****(passed Jan.2007, 115.06 abolished effective May 1, 2007)

Sources: Whitehall City Council Office

Whitehall Mayor Kim Maggard has posted endorsements she’s received from various government officials. This is done to give the appearance, to the casual observer who has not been paying attention down at City Hall, that she has gravitas and the backing of important people. I say, as one who has been watching down at City Hall for the last six years, that there is more to it than meets the eye and so this list needs some understanding and clarification for the voters to more fully understand what is underneath these endorsements.Let me assist.

So, to start, here is her list;

PERSONAL ENDORSEMENTS: (more additions soon)

Whitehall City Attorney Michael Shannon
Whitehall City Auditor Dan Miller
Whitehall Council President Jim Graham
Whitehall City Council member Chris Rodriguez
Whitehall City Council member Larry Morrison
Whitehall City Council member Van Gregg
Whitehall City Council member Karen Conison
Whitehall City Council member Bob Bailey
Whitehall School Board President Walter Armes
Whitehall School Board Vice President Blythe Wood
Whitehall School Board member Michael Adkins
Whitehall School Board member Joy Bivens
Whitehall Future Attorney Michael Bivens
U.S. Representative Joyce Beatty
Ohio Representative Heather Bishoff

As well, there was this too from Mayor Maggard;

“Many of you are asking, ‘Mayor, who do you endorse for council positions and city treasurer?” Read on.
RE-ELECT BOB BAILEY, Council-at-Large; he is thoughtful and thinks before he speaks. He sees the big picture about moving Whitehall forward. He’s not hesitant to approach and discuss his concerns.
RE-ELECT KAREN CONISON, Council-at-Large; her involvement in the community is not due to her running for any office. She’s been involved long before she was on city council and does it for the good of the community. She doesn’t bash nor gossip. She knows what is takes to run the city and exemplifies teamwork.
ELECT STEVE QUINCEL, Treasurer. His common sense and positive approach to solving problems is refreshing. His qualifications are out of this world. He is responsible with his own money and will do the same for yours. Most of all, he genuinely wants to see the City keep progressing.”

So too, on Mayor Maggard’s political Facebook page under this post, Cheryl Jo Thompson, the leader of Issue 32, the successful effort to recall Councilperson Jacquelyn Thompson (no relation) unabashedly added this regarding Mayor Maggard’s endorsements;

“THIS list speaks volumes to the competency and value of our Mayor Kim Maggard’s work thus far and in the future! ALL of these people know and have worked with the Mayor and her opponent at one point or another and stand strong in endorsing Mayor Maggard! This is loud and clear!! RE-ELECT Mayor Kim Maggard!”

Okay, fine. If the Mayor’s endorsements speak “loud and clear!!” to the “competency and value” of her work now and in the future and Mayor Maggard writes so glowingly about those who support her, allow me to examine (serving as an alternate viewpoint) who some of these people are that bring such importance to her credentials, past the name on the desk, what they have done, and how connected they all are to each other through their checkbooks. Let’s start with City Attorney Mike Shannon…

City Attorney Michael T. Shannon

Donated to:

Kim Maggard, $200

Cheryl Jo Thompson’s ‘Issue 32’, $150

Donations received:

Jim Graham, $35

Van Gregg, $50

Bob Bailey, $60

Chris Rodriguez, $25

• Mr. Shannon ignores conflicts of interest to serve his own needs.
  

• Mr. Shannon uses the word ‘litigation’ to send a chilling effect to both Council and citizens, effectively abusing the power of his office against those ignorant of law to quash rightful inquiry for the citizens and their representative’s knowledge and benefit.

• Mr. Shannon couldn’t supply me with proof of a law (nor the Mayor his verbal opinion) that overturned or overruled the Supreme Court decision, Camara v Municipal Court, which specifically detailed the do’s and don’ts of code officers on private property. This after code officers were photographed on private property without permission or a warrant right here in Whitehall. His muddled claim outside the proof of law essentially admitted then that there was no law.

• When I brought a well-researched, thoroughly detailed four page flier, with footnotes, into a council meeting, detailing the corruption present in the Wolfe administration, Mike Shannon decided that the real problem was me and proceeded to minimize and marginalize my efforts to expose the actions and behavior of John Wolfe, himself and others who are part of the problem at City Hall.

  He said;

“I take exception to anybody who takes shots at my mayor.” “What we have here is a frustrated thespian who has finally found the forum where you can wax eloquently without fear of a director yelling ‘cut’ or without fear of contradiction, where talent is of non-consequence and truth is certainly a fleeting proposition”

Not one of my representatives on council had the political courage to defend me against the city attorney’s attack. Not one. Perhaps the donation numbers shown here may shed some light on that.

• After the Charter Review Commission (appointed by the council) recommended ending term limits in 2013, it was placed on the ballot, for the third time. A committee was formed by Steve Quincel, current candidate for City Treasurer, and among the donors were City Attorney Michael Shannon and Mayor Kim Maggard, each donating $300 apiece. (Those who would enjoy the greatest benefit from its passage). In a Dispatch article at the time, it stated, ‘Mayor Kim Maggard said term limits also hinder the city’s ability to attract young professionals for elected jobs, including the treasurer, auditor and city attorney spots. “It’s hard to attract anyone into those positions if they cannot have a career there”, Maggard said’.

Career politicians. Don’t we have enough of these causing us problems?

Auditor Dan Miller

Donated to:

Kim Maggard, $250

Donations received:

Kim Maggard, $350

Karen Conison, $20

Jim Graham, 20

Van Gregg, $75

• There have been two citizens, one of them me, who, when speaking to Mr. Miller of our concern that code officers were stepping onto our properties without permission or a warrant, were then asked by him if we had ‘No Trespassing’ signs posted. Mr. Miller essentially made excuses for City Hall’s scofflaw behavior. It is the law enforcers duty to know the lawful parameters of their job, not mine to tell them. My ‘No Trespassing’ signs are there for the casual citizen. They are not there to inform city officials what their job is nor what my rights are.

Council President Jim Graham

Donated to:

Kim Maggard, $175

Cheryl Jo Thompson’s ‘Issue 32’, $50

• Mr. Graham is a controlling authoritarian, afraid to let his fellow Americans live in the liberty guaranteed them by the U.S. Constitution because he’d lose the power that keeps control over those he wishes to. When suggested that council consider a moratorium on code enforcement until the code office, the Mayor, etc. can become more respectful and lawful, Mr Graham blurted out that “chaos!” would ensue. Mr. Graham doesn’t trust others with their right to liberty because their liberty is messier than his and he distrusts their ability to self govern themselves. He fears loss of control and has discomfort with other people doing as they please which doesn’t conform to his standard of acceptable behavior.

• Mr. Graham enabled and excused code enforcement officers stepping onto private property without permission or a warrant by obfuscating code language at a council committee meeting. He suggested that they have a “right” to go onto property if they ‘feel’ there is a problem. This is actually opposite of the 4^th amendment and the Supreme Court’s decision, Camara v Municipal Court, which reaffirmed the 4^th amendment and made specific what is allowable by code officers. Since he’d made this erroneous pronouncement in a public forum I told him I expected him to correct it in a public forum, for the record. He never did.

• When Don Sarubbi (the man who objected to the language on the panhandling signs generalizing that all people who begged for money were alcoholics and drug addicts) and I were going to speak at a council meeting with several people in attendance, Mr. Graham warned Mr. Sarubbi as he walked to the dais that he was gonna shrink the time to address council from three minutes to two because there were a lot of people that might want to speak. As it turned out, it was just Mr. Sarubbi and I. The council’s responsibility and obligation is to listen to everyone that speaks, even were that to last until midnight. Mr. Graham, in truth, disrespected the citizens and their allotted time to address their council not due to the amount of people but because he knew Mr. Sarubbi and I were going to talk about the wrongness of the signage.

Councilperson Chris Rodriguez

Donations accepted;

Bob Bailey, $100

Jim Graham, $25

• 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.”

• Councilman Rodriguez has been absent an inordinate amount of time due to his job taking him away. As such, he is not there to do his job as councilman with the maximum attention it deserves for the sake of the citizens. Given that, I sent him a respectful private letter on September 3^rd asking him, for the good of the citizens he’s supposed to represent in Ward One, to resign. It was sent to his home with no c.c. attached. He never replied.

Councilperson Larry Morrison

Donations received:

Kim Maggard, $100

Councilperson Van Gregg

Donated to:

Kim Maggard, $175

Mike Shannon, $50

Bob Bailey, $60

Dan Miller, $75

Donations received:

Kim Maggard $100

Cheryl Jo Thompson, $100

John Wolfe, $250

Bob Bailey, $60

Councilperson Karen Conison

Donations received:

Kim Maggard, $400

• Karen Conison is a good person but doesn’t understand why impartiality matters in her job as the people’s voice. She has unabashedly gushed her affection for the Mayor too many times, I’m afraid to the detriment of the citizens interests she’s supposed to be serving (even to the point of one time saying, “I don’t think I need to tell you how I feel about our Mayor” as if we all knew…and we did!)She is supposed to be impartial for the sake of the citizens, as a citizen how can I trust she’ll be on my side if ‘my side’ is not ‘the Mayors side’? If the Mayor or any of her other friends on council are doing things which aren’t best for the citizens, will Karen have the individuality and courage to oppose them for the sake of the citizens? I honestly don’t believe or trust in her ability to do so.

• When Bob Bailey introduced legislation that would outlaw portable basketball backboards with little time for any public debate, they introduced and voted on it in its debut to the public. Karen voted yes on it but after hearing a couple peoples dissent towards it, afterwards she (admittedly courageously) said she was wrong for having voted yes on it before the citizens got a chance to look at it and debate it (correct)and wished she’d voted no. Unfortunately for the citizens she is supposed to be serving, the time to consider matters that have impact on their lives, as a council representative, is before you vote on it. Karen, as wonderful as she is, usually has 20 pots simmering at any given time. I maintain that the most important one that should receive the lion’s share of her consideration is that of the job the citizens entrusted her to. If she cannot adequately give that the attention and consideration it is due then she has no business doing the many other things which wrongly scatter her focus. Legislator for the citizens first and foremost.

Councilperson Bob Bailey

Donated to:

Kim Maggard, $130

Mike Shannon, $60

Jim Graham, $100

Van Gregg, $60

Chris Rodriguez, $100

Donations received:

Jim Graham, $100

Van Gregg, $60

Cheryl Jo Thompson, $50

• The best way to describe Councilman Bailey is, he’s an authoritarian. He favors and agrees and defends his friends in City Hall over the citizens more than I think is acceptable. Like Mr. Graham, Mr. Bailey likes control and thinks he knows what is best for citizens. His grasp on the Constitution is only as strong as suits him or his friends in City Hall. Too often, when wrong is being perpetrated at City Hall, instead of defending those citizens who are wronged, lifts up and defends his friends, the wrongdoers.

• After Code Officers trespassed on private property without permission or a warrant, I asked for a moratorium on codes. During the meeting that Leslie LaCorte tried valiantly to get at the heart of the matter, Mr. Bailey obfuscated and distracted the conversation by adding pointless remarks, changing the central topic and unabashedly praising code enforcement. What was meant to be a thoughtful, respectful and meaningful conversation to fully understand the problem and bring possible good and uncover wrongs was derailed, thanks in part to Mr. Bailey’s inappropriate behavior.

• Recently, it was Mr. Bailey who introduced legislation that banned portable basketball backboards from being used in the streets. Whatever its merits, the citizens never got to be a part of the discussion over the thing which would impact their lives. The legislation became first available on a Friday or Saturday, three or four days after usually becoming available for inspection. On Tuesday, only three or four days after it was introduced, it was passed, right there at its first and only reading. No discussion, no debate, no input from the community. Secret legislation passed quickly. They wanted it, to hell with the citizens. It was also pre-decided they were going to pass the legislation, regardless of any opposition the citizens might have gotten to add were they given the opportunity. I’m sorry but secret governments do this kind of thing, not governments of the people, by the people, for the people. The only one who saw the wrong of it was Leslie LaCorte who was the sole dissenting vote. So too, this was done without alternate recreational opportunities for the youth. That sort of behavior is not in the best interests of the citizens. It is in the best interest of what Bob Bailey wants, procedures, processes and respect towards the citizens rights be damned.

Candidate for Whitehall Treasurer Steve Quincel

I have no issues with Steve Quincel, I met him and he seems like a genuinely nice person but the reader must know that between himself and his wife, Whitehall Parks and Recreation Board member Katie Quincel (appointed by Kim Maggard) have mutually donated a total of $550 to Kim Maggard.

U.S. Representative Joyce Beaty

Congressperson Beatty is a Democrat, so is Kim Maggard. A straight party-line endorsement.

Ohio Representative Heather Bishoff

Also a Democratic Party line endorsement but;

Donated to:

Kim Maggard, $250

Donations received:

Kim Maggard, $200

So, while ordinarily these endorsements could be looked on as simply being what they are, as you see, there is so much more to take from them. Specifically, the inter-donating to one another, that which they can’t seem to help but give money to each other and support one another. It undermines their credibility and trust as leaders with their endorsements for each other because we don’t know if they’re saying it because they mean it or they’re saying it because they gave each other money or simply because they’re party supporters or because they’re friends. It is rife with conflicts of interest for many reasons but in particular when citizens can’t or won’t be heard by them, specifically those who criticize them or one of their fellow donors. Therefore, due to the complete absence of impartiality involved in a lot of these endorsements, as well as some of their questionable character, the validity of them must not be allowed such simple consideration and must be questioned. When Cheryl Jo Thompson offers forth her statement of unabashed worship for Mayor Maggard, can we trust that it has true depth or that it is free from the strings attached to her with Kim Maggard having made chili for her committee’s Issue 32 fundraiser or the $200 she herself has donated to Kim Maggard? Can we trust any of them when they endorse Mayor Maggard as the right one for Whitehall when so many of them are connected by so much political money? Is it due to real and concrete endorsements of her actions and record? (What are those, in detail by the way (outside of hyperbolic cheerleading) and when do we get to read them all as written by these people themselves?) When there is questionable behavior by one or another of them and they say nothing about it, can we trust that we’re getting a balanced critical review of her performance as mayor with these endorsements, or is it just a peppermint facade constructed to bedazzle and fool the voters? I don’t care if they are elected officials, they’re still only flawed human beings with a title. With the monetary strings attached I don’t believe we can trust anything they say. Particularly given their record of silence in light of their friends sometimes shameful behavior. I don’t believe many of them (not all) can be trusted so, given all of the above, I claim this list is largely shallow, empty and merely self-serving.

(note: more will be explained regarding a ‘familial’ connection in another post)

Mayor John Wolfe was quoted as saying about Whitehall, “You don’t become the next Upper Arlington by just dreaming big”. I’m sure, as an authoritarian, he meant the kind of place that is regulated and controlled to an inch of its life, to his liking. Since he was a golfer I’m sure it also had to do with that level of community. This also meant that Mayor Wolfe had grand aspirations for Whitehall becoming like an Upper Arlington. As a native and realist that notion gave me a good laugh but it also clued me into how out of touch and foolish a notion it was. What wasn’t articulated was that, while dreaming big is terrific, one must also acknowledge the reality of ones surroundings and keep your feet grounded in the truth. The ‘dreaming big’ he and the current Mayor, Kim Maggard, are doing is actually more akin to a nightmare. Allow me to defend that position.

They present an unnatural facade that only fools people into thinking its something that its not and try desperately to entreat people to live and do business here that are inorganic to the community based on that false premise. This is done so to attract people like themselves to Whitehall, chase out ‘undesireables’ and create some sort of false utopia. It is presenting one thing to people while another acts as a counterpoint, as an alternate reality, one that less people may be aware of. This is best illustrated in the stark contrasts between the pretty welcoming median (the facade) being constructed on Main Street near Collingwood, and City Hall fortified with heavy, thick plexiglas (the reality) making it look like a police precinct in the Bronx, not Whitehall.

Whitehall is a post-war suburbia, most of its houses are laid out in typical suburban tracts with same or similar mid-20^th century architecture. To ever have it resemble Upper Arlington is to tear out a lot of the housing and replace it with homes in neighborhoods most wealthy people who like areas like Upper Arlington would never live. The destruction and change and investment and downright foolishness of such an endeavor is beyond the scope of rational thought. You see a little of this in the change for Yearling Road which Whitehall was too poor to fully pay for or at least, pay in part and which had to be done in increments. They had grand schemes and ambitions to change Yearling Road to have an olde English theme because Whitehall was named after Whitehall England, despite the fact that there is absolutely nothing here slightly reminiscent of Britain. It cost a lot of money and because it wasn’t true to the character of Whitehall, it was never really bought by the people and therefore went nowhere. I say it was faulty thinking and planning. It is fashioning an inorganic character for it that has nothing to do with its true character, ignoring the reality and possible gold its real character does possess and offer and being okay with that. It is looking for its identity outwards instead of inwards, which shows an uncomfortability with and disrespect toward its truth. We are a small landlocked suburb of Columbus Ohio grown out of the boom and need for more housing in post World War II America, that which included my parents. It is not Upper Arlington, it is not Gahanna, it is not Paris or Stockholm either. It is little old Whitehall Ohio. It is what it is. It has wealthy people in it, it has middle class people in it, as well as poor people too. This has always been Whitehall’s reality and still is. To deny any part of this and inorganically push for something its not, shows the true contempt they have for it. Therefore, I maintain it is they who actually don’t like Whitehall, not accepting it as it is and working within the parameters of that, which is mainly a small, working class town.

You have the gorgeous sweeping lawns of the wealthier homes on Fairway Boulevard, the working class apartments of Parklawn, the middle class saltbox homes in the Ural Avenue area, the regular folks in the area of Rickenbacker, Erickson and Elaine. The old homes in the tree-lined streets of ‘The Woods’. There are so many differing areas of the city, each with their own unique character. That unique character is what should be appreciated, respected, promoted and celebrated, not torn out, picked apart and standardized (for whose benefit, liking or gain?). Again, anything else is in contempt of the truth that really exists and is a disrespect and betrayal of the reality of Whitehall’s neighborhoods and its people.

I believe this is what drives Whitehall’s leaders. They want to inorganically change and shape Whitehall into something they want it to be, not raise up, promote and better what actually is. They do this with heavy-handed code enforcement which either chases out those that don’t fit into their ‘vision’ or standardizes them through harassment and fines until they bend to their will and become, as the code office says, “compliant”. A bland, standardized, sanitized, uninteresting, corporatized sameness through compliance, one that they’re comfortable with but which offers up a community with little to no character and little to no interest, either to the citizen or visitor. This is City Hall’s ultimate vision and I think it is causing irreparable harm to our future. It has put Whitehall into a difficult position; trying to find its identity and future while in the upheaval of change, within the stifling, hemmed-in climate of ‘No!’

THE CITY OF ‘NO’

It is an ugly truth that Whitehall leadership has contempt for those who don’t fit into their program, their ‘vision’, because they don’t truly understand sociology, psychology and the overall human condition. They don’t respect and appreciate the true rich parade of human beings and their varying character. They don’t know what to do with them or how to elicit getting what they want out of them in a more respectful, honorable and naturalistic fashion. So, they hit people over the head and prosecute them and say no to things that don’t lie within the parameters of their banal taste or the understanding in their skulls, instead of allowing those that do exist to be themselves and promote and celebrate that which they actually are. Codes are so stringent in a town of regular people that it leaves little to no room for exciting innovation, diverseness of character and expression from your very own talent pool. I have heard ‘no’ so many times within Whitehall it truly speaks to what is wrong here, and not with the people themselves. City Hall is so afraid to allow people their true liberty, scared to death that every human being in town will go utterly mad without their control and start robbing, murdering and putting their cars on cinder-blocks in the front yards. They have a complete lack of trust in anyone’s sense, except their own, and that’s the truth of Whitehall’s leadership. They rule with an anti-liberty, anti-diversity, anti-poor, anti-freedom, anti-human ‘vision’, steering the ship of state with an iron grip, eyes fearfully peeled for anyone or anything unlike their dull, standardized selves which challenge their contemptuous ‘vision’.

Then, there is ‘yes’. As I well know from my comedy improvisation days in New York City, ‘yes’ opens up possibilities. Life truly is like a river, yes and truth are the natural course of the river. When you say no, its like a big boulder has landed into the river and sent it off in a direction that wasn’t natural to its flow. When you say yes (with sense and reason) the river goes in an organic direction to where its supposed to go. In that result you find and take advantage of the gold which was naturally ordained to be and which can serve the community immeasurably. Sure, you may have bumps along the way but ‘no’ stops innovation, ‘no’ stops organic growth, ‘no’ stops exciting possibility and the unending creativity, joy and innovation that ‘yes’ brings to life. This is what they’re missing. They’re so busy saying ‘no’ that they’re missing the gold that ‘yes’ can bring. The truth of life is that we all share our humanity, we cry, we bleed, we die, we want happiness and to protect ourselves and our families. However, we are diverse in traditions and character, those fascinating differences which are exciting and bring real interest to our lives. That which, with belief in and courage, we can and should be celebrating and promoting for an interesting community rich with an organic character, not dull with a standardized one, forced on us by someone elses fears and tastes.

In Whitehall codes, there are rules governing, for instance, the spaces in your fences. Conveniently for City Hall then, you hear Mayor Maggard saying things like, “If there are spaces in the fences and we can see through them, we can cite them for violations”. This certainly makes it appear that the codes were written (and there are several) to benefit and make unending and cyclical the code enforcement division themselves, making money for the city and those who enforce it. In particular the nearly $100, 000 paid out annually to the two that enforce it now. As well, just to name two, there are codes standardizing the size of house street numbers and criminalizing artificial flowers, those which I have seen many times on my walks door to door. What these do, among several or many, is block creativity and expression, that which is individually organic and which may have the ability to make Whitehall an interesting enough place to attract the attention of others (media, other open-minded denizens) to our city. What is natural for Whitehall should be promoted, appreciated and celebrated by the government which represents those very people, not crushed, pushed out and fined. If you want to promote artists, then promote artistry. If you want to attract intelligent people then promote and attract them by being intelligent and doing things which they would appreciate and enjoy. If you want tepid, fearful, standardized dullards, then push that. Otherwise, promoting a false, general narrative that doesn’t exist is understood to be exactly that by the very kinds of people you’re trying to attract and is rightly avoided by them due to the fabrication it is. Interested, artistic, innovative, good, smart people with flair who help raise a community up aren’t interested or swayed by false affections for their kind. After all, you can’t present a turd on a silver platter to smart people and expect them to believe its a Baby Ruth.

Now, Whitehall has two choices. Here is the fork in our road;

We can continue to allow people with no actual vision or intellect (but plenty of ego, authoritarianism and self-aggrandizement) to mold and exert unnatural control on our communities with little understanding for how they work and what makes them succeed. Suppressing liberty, innovation, creativity, truth and freedom to fashion a nostalgic husk of a city which all the true vibrant life has been wrung out of by a contemptuous authoritarian standardization.

Or…you can be a city of ‘YES!’ and say to the rest of central Ohio, to the world, that Whitehall gives a damn about its people and their government is here for them and not the other way around. That it celebrates the diversity of ethnic identity and color and individual character and what gold that brings the community. It allows for a wonderful tapestry of creativity and displays of the human spirit. It believes in all of its citizens, poor and rich, old and young, black and white, able and disabled, home owner and renter and not just the ones like themselves. It believes the power of ‘yes’ has the capability to elevate their community to something that’s rarely seen anymore and trust that the ‘yes’ will be okay (outside of safety issues). It believes that we are all a part of humankind and respect and believe in every person’s capacity for good and the wonderful gifts their unique talents bring to the table. It is a city that does not presume the worst in people but believes in and expects the best from them and if they fail that vision, tolerate and respect their right to be themselves outside of your expectations. It promotes friendly competition among neighborhoods, promotes good behavior, innovation and the best Whitehall offers, in a range of categories. If, at the end of the day you have a city that is engaged and has fun and interesting character and diversity and is organic to itself, then that is what it is and it is right and inclusive and respectful of its natural order. This can be done with a good portion of patience, willingness, trust, belief in and enthusiasm to see it accomplished. With that a wonderful community can rise. Not necessarily what once was but rather what can be. Whitehall can be an amazing place if we just relax and help it become its truth.

Last week I was alerted to a neighbor on Maplewood Avenue being hounded again by our local Code Enforcement department. This is a senior citizen, a veteran and long-time Whitehall resident (not the 1st one this has happened to). A gentle man who harms no one, on a fixed income mind you, I was yet again brought to anger at this ongoing harrassment of Whitehall’s citizens by their intrusive government. So much so I fired off an angry letter to the Whitehall News. I think it says it eloquently and sufficiently. It was perhaps the fastest letter I ever wrote, everything just poured out of me. Here is the letter followed by what exactly code enforcement is.
To the Editor,

“There is an older gentleman who can be seen walking his dog ‘Bo’ around the streets of Whitehall. His name is Tom Mentzer, he is 65 years old and lived in Whitehall since the Truman administration. Code enforcement can’t seem to leave him alone and I say it is tantamount to harrassment of a senior citizen by Whitehall’s government.

People constantly pine over a lost Whitehall where homeowners like Tom existed in much larger numbers, as I remember it too. Now, you have administrations bent on the destruction of this part of Whitehall’s character because it doesn’t fit their current personal notions of aesthetic beauty. Tom has a fine older home on Maplewood and is of a certain generation. Old bric-a-brac, beautiful flowers, very country-like. However, this doesn’t fit into the current overseers ideas of acceptable beauty for them regarding his private property. Neighbors seem to say ‘jump’ and code enforcement answers, ‘how high?’

The Whitehall of old was also people who lived in ‘homes’ and not ‘properties’ or ‘investments’. A neighborhood’s character is not made up of investments but people living in homes. This is what has changed and Whitehall is a part of that real problem. It pits neighbor against neighbor, citizens pushing others to be like them instead of tolerance for diversity and true character. Code enforcement opens that Pandora’s Box when it enforces taste and choice on personal, private property, that which is the citizens liberty to control, not the governments or authoritarian busy bodies who don’t understand what freedom and liberty truly is. When it is the government who insist on beauty and taste superseding personal liberty and freedom, it can be called by no other name than tyranny. As a native and long-time Whitehall resident, I find this practice disgusting.”

This is what code enforcement is, certainly here in Whitehall;

Code Enforcement is, in part, used as a weapon against:

• The fearful and timid
• The poor
• Those ignorant of law

This is done to:

• “Make the city look nice”
• exert Authoritarian control
• Chase out ‘undesirables’

It is hostile to:

• Freedom and Liberty…

…which disrespects veterans and dishonors their service and sacrifice.

Growing up in Whitehall in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s the prevalent crime was drunk driving, teen drug use and petty stuff like shoplifting, etc. Occasionally a bigger crime came through like the man who bombed JC Pennys and Zayres in 1970. Otherwise, it wasn’t like it is today with an influx or visitation by those who would commit larger scale crimes. I heard my first ever gunshots here in Whitehall in the latter 90’s and knew things were changing for the worse. Most everyone who lives here or has been here for more than two decades knows this. It is up to the citizens then and the serving Mayoral administration to take action against this.

I believe Whitehall’s # 1 problem is crime. It supersedes all else. Unless it is brought under control everything else is threatened and, at least immediately, less important.

There are two components to crime fighting; police and citizen involvement. Let’s start with the police.

Police. They of course have the manpower and the arsenal and protective gear to fight crime at a different level than the resident on the block. I think the Whitehall Police do a terrific job in their roles. I ‘m truly thankful that Whitehall is its own city and that it has its own police force, able to respond more quickly to situations than the larger City of Columbus might be able were we part of a larger whole. This enables Whitehall to send a message to miscreants and felons that they and their activities are not and will not be tolerated in Whitehall. Our police force handles that superbly. That is certainly one way we keep Whitehall safe and secure. Too though, staffing levels are important in that fight, the manpower needed and required to wage that defense. Unfortunately, in the recent past and currently, we are several officers low and that causes increased concern in regard to our #1 problem. Officers are currently working way too much trying to fill the gaps left by the loss or lack of appropriate staff levels. Chief Zitzke and Mayor Maggard explained to Council that it takes a year, or nearly so, for an applicant to go from the start of the process to being an officer on the streets. There were a couple officers retiring and one applicant made it so far but then didn’t work out in the end which has left a shortfall in staffing with the current officers left picking up the gap, to increased stress levels and the detriment of their families. I say that if you want to tackle the #1 problem in a city, you do not do it with rhetoric but with actualization. Over a year ago, during the Mayor’s ‘State of the City’ speech, in which she made herself look forceful using ‘tough’ language, she declared how she was intolerant of crime and drugs here in Whitehall. It’s my assertion that Mayor Maggard has dropped that ball and put this city at a greater risk of sliding further into crime, leaving us more vulnerable than we should have been right now, particularly when we are trying to gain the upper hand in this problem. It is no coincidence then that the Fraternal Order of Police chose not to endorse her for a second term. Its clear and as simple as that.

The other part of the problem in the city’s half measures in fighting its # 1 problem is two-fold. Firstly, while crime increases, instead of using maximum manpower to fight this overarching scourge, they instead use tax dollar-funded manpower to focus on non-crimes which make criminals of regular citizens, harassing them while true crime surrounds them. Secondly, they have increased the staffing for nonessential personnel so as to compete and stay equal to communities like Reynoldsburg and Gahanna that aren’t facing and dealing with the crime situation as we are. Instead of erring on the side of safety and crimefighting, they’re buying brand new trucks for the code enforcement ‘officer’, installing health centers for city employees and hiring ‘Community Affairs Coordinators’, among others, as well giving them salaries and raises all around in the face of a shortage of manpower in the fight against the true danger to Whitehall’s downfall. Some may argue that while crime is being fought we need to keep a semblance of well-being to show the citizens and the outside world that we are not down for the count. While that is laudable and understandable and may entice people to move here with code enforcement-scrubbed properties, once they do get here and hear a couple rounds of gunshots fired, they might regret their decision and alert others to the true situation that exists here. Nice landscaping and petunias in the window box look nice but they won’t stop an errant bullet from entering your home or into your body. While the city wastes vital tax resources to criminalize Mrs. Jones for the couch on her front porch, ‘Jimmy .32′ is shootin’ someone down at the pool hall. All of the money they spend on these superficial pusuits could be spent on more officers and, instead of foolishly allowing staffing levels to reach such a dangerous low, they should have had their act together to begin with, knowing who was retiring, how long it took a recruit to make it onto the streets as an officer and staffing not just to capacity but using the extra money they spent on nonessential positions to hire a few extra officers to help fight this scourge until its either wiped out or brought under control. First things first. Once that is a reality then we can focus on other things such as a government that responds organically to the actual character and lives of the citizens it has instead of bending those citizens inorganically to act as something they’re not for the desires and wills of its overseer government. (more on that in another post)

Citizen involvement. Growing up here in Whitehall, and I know in other communities, informing the authorities about a person or situation is tantamount to ‘snitching’ or ‘narc-ing’, as it was characterized in my day, and while I encourage restraint and human sense in watching the street, sometimes the eyes on the street are the authorities (and the community’s) first line of defense in the safety and security of the neighborhoods. In the groundbreaking book ‘The Death and Life of Great American Cities’ by Jane Jacobs https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30833.The_Death_and_Life_of_Great_American_Cities

she talks at length about what makes a neighborhood’s streets safe;

“…the public peace—the sidewalk and street peace—is not kept primarily by the police, necessary as police are. It is kept primarily by an intricate, almost unconscious, network of voluntary controls and standards among the people themselves, and enforced by the people themselves. … there must be eyes upon the street, eyes belonging to those we might call the natural proprietors of the street. The buildings on a street equipped to handle strangers and to insure the safety of both residents and strangers, must be oriented to the street. They cannot turn their backs or blank sides on it and leave it blind.

And…, the sidewalk must have users on it fairly continuously, both to add to the number of effective eyes on the street and to induce the people in buildings along the street to watch the sidewalks in sufficient numbers. Nobody enjoys sitting on a stoop or looking out a window at an empty street. Almost nobody does such a thing. Large numbers of people entertain themselves, off and on, by watching street activity.”

While casual policing of the street and neighborhoods can and should be done by the residents themselves (kids acting up, people littering, etc) if the situation gets a little heavier then at least the eyes on the street have spied the offense and calling the authorities is certainly merited. On my street, Doney, I believe stringently in this rule. From Robinwood Avenue to Rita Court my eyes are on the street. It is mine and my neighbors street and the safety or danger of it is in our hands. When kids are out of hand or there is littering or suspicious behavior, I either speak to the person(s) myself or can call the police it its so warranted. Either way, on that half block of Doney Street, I have asserted myself with this kind of attitude towards community responsibility to troublesome passerby that acting up and causing trouble is not welcome or tolerated. Now imagine what kind of effect on Whitehall’s whole these sort of actions would have if everyone took Jane Jacobs sage teachings to heart. It would make an enormous impact.

A slightly different cousin of these teachings is one I’ve heard discussed and utilized here in Whitehall; the neighborhood Block Watch. Councilperson Karen Conison is well known for and rightly lauded for her work in this area and while I too commend her and others for their work, per Jane Jacob’s observations, I have to point out the one deficiency in this measure of citizen policing and that is; when citizens are out on the street patrolling in a Block Watch, there may well be no crimes happening when they’re out or, if anyone is up to no good, they might easily spot the block watch and change their behavior to pretend they’re not up to no good. So too, the block watch patrol is not on the streets 24/7, whereas having all citizens taking responsibility in watching their block in the fashion as described above, not only is every few feet covered but the block is watched over with alert eyes and ears for the entire 24/7. This is absolutely essential in the fight to push back crime’s encroachment and certainly the first response in concert with the police, and while the block watch is one tool in this fight it is really the responsibility of every citizen to do their part individually to keep our streets safe and secure.

In addition, it is my belief when the dynamics of communities are changing that it is up to the citizens themselves to defend their way of life and their neighborhoods. The character of people who move onto your street is always an active event to the neighborhood, never a passive one. (this is also why character matters) If crime is encroaching, if people are moving in who do not cop to the standards your neighborhood has set, then I believe the citizens themselves, not the government, have an obligation to defend the sanctity of their neighborhoods, particularly in a neighborhood with low transience. If the neighborhood enjoys a certain level of decency and responsibility and respect and lack of crime amongst themselves, then those neighborhood traits should be respected and copped to by those who would put down their influence and mark on the neighborhood they move into. It only makes sense then that the people who already live in a place and who have already set the tone should have the right to maintain it, specifically and most importantly, crime-free.

I always believed the old notion that if a neighborhood doesn’t fit oneself, in any number of ways (too old, too young, too many children, too quiet, etc.) then one is free to find a like-neighborhood where they will fit in. Here on Doney, there have been several people move into rentals here who didn’t fit in at all, either with drug dealing or out of control miscreant kids or drunken curse-laden late-night scream-fests, and with all of them I monitored and let them know, personally or via a police cruiser when appropriate, the wrongness of their actions and behavior. This, in its fashion, made them feel unwelcome (or at least their behavior) and that this part of Doney was not their home if that was the way they were going to act, and rightfully so. This part of Doney Street is generally middle-aged, quieter folks who keep things nice. Now, if I or no one else ever did anything to let people know their behavior is irresponsible or unwelcome to the neighborhood then it says it is welcome and before you know it, Mr. Smith has now moved out and two more irresponsible, disrespectful people have moved in. This is how good neighborhoods decline in a community; because the community itself does not police and defend its neighborhoods strongly enough, if at all, from being hijacked by miscreants and inappropriate/criminal behavior. After all, if criminality and bad behavior are active in my community, then my reactions to that, as a good citizen defending my neighborhood, should be also. I maintain that the very state Whitehall is in now with more crime encroaching (which welcomes even more crime) is as a direct result of those who did live here that either did not defend Whitehall’s standards and/or just simply left. As Whitehall stands now, in part, is as a direct result of former residents abandonment of this principal. It is a betrayal to Whitehall itself. Do not tell me you love Whitehall but then passively allow its virtual murder.

It seems whenever someone is in office, in order to get themselves re-elected, they shout from the rooftops that it is “EXPERIENCE!!” that matters. Here is how that is not true;

Mayor Kim Maggard, Councilpersons Bailey, Conison, Kantor, their supporters and others all use this to invoke a fear, uncertainty and/or mistrust in the credentials and capability of those opposing their run for a particular office who have never held it before. If indeed ‘experience matters’ then we must ask how that credential was bypassed, with success mind you, by the likes of Mayor Kim Maggard, Councilpersons Bob Bailey, Karen Conison and Wes Kantor? Not to mention Abraham Lincoln! How is it their inexperience in the offices they now hold was unimportant then, but in seeking re-election, it is the most important consideration now? Its because they want to get re-elected and hope you’ll simply accept that as an important consideration of them without scrutinizing its truth as you should.

If experience was required to run a specific office yet no one had ever ran that office, how is one ever to enter an office without some measure of trust in them to do so given by the electorate? Its the chicken or the egg. How many times we’ve seen in the media an 18 year old getting elected to the Mayor’s office somewhere. He’s not experienced and that town still has services to operate, citizen needs and wants to be filled and the general overall operation of the city itself. (If experience truly mattered John Bishop would’ve never been elected and presided over this city’s greatest era.) Whitehall is not Chicago, Whitehall is not the Presidency of the United States. It is a small municipality near the airport within the confines of a larger city. Its chief internal concern lies in its crime problem. That which Councilperson Leslie LaCorte has been very frank about as well as her support of the police department. That which is evidenced in the confidence the Fraternal Order of Police has shown in her to lead Whitehall in it’s # 1 problem with their endorsement of her, not the ‘experienced’ Kim Maggard who currently runs this city. (It appears the police agree with me on this topic and have themselves shown the falsehood in the ‘experience matters’ claim!) Outside of that are the other concerns, all of which can and will be dealt with in the shadow of our number one problem, crime. The way in which to do this can be handled with sense, reason, an appreciation for all the citizens and surrounding yourself, not with fawning sycophants and cronies, but with the best that your city’s coffers can hire from the applicants you petitioned for the positions.

What matters a great deal more than experience is character. I cannot stress its importance, particularly in public office, any more forcefully than that. I would rather have an ‘inexperienced’ anybody with decency, morals, ethics, kindness and care for people, as well as respect for law and the citizens than ‘experienced’ persons who are vainglorious, deceitful, shirk the law and attend to self-serving wants over the actual needs of the people themselves. Ultimately then, it is not ‘experience’ that matters, it is character. By leaps and bounds.

“A legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law“.- Justice John Marshall

LEGISLATOR

I believe the legislator’s top two priorities in the people’s government are to safeguard the U.S. Constitution against anyone, inside or outside government, who would undercut or chip away at the citizen’s rights, through whatever means, and to represent the citizens interests, not the Mayor’s, not their fellow councilpersons (unless they are acting in the citizens interests) nor any other person or entity whose interest is outside that of the citizens. I take that responsibility seriously and with steadfast principals and dedication will ensure that direction is followed. It is how this government was set up to work and that is how I will proceed within it. Bottom line, plain and simple. If this is not a councilperson’s priority otherwise, in word and deed, then they are clearly there for any number of other reasons, priorities or associations other than the citizens themselves. I caution the voters to examine motivations and actions of all in government thoroughly as well as demand depth of information from them when they’re running for office and to verbalize their feelings and opinions when they get in. Shadowy people run shadow governments. Open people run open ones.

CRONYISM & PATRONAGE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Within Whitehall Council, I have witnessed, too often, how some have chosen their personal relationships, affiliations and associations with the Mayor or their buddies, over or to the harm of, the citizens themselves. This is never acceptable and, quite honestly, shameful of those who represent the people’s voice. That they don’t understand or heed the simple and apparent wrong in this manner of governing, for those who do know and understand its wrong, is striking. Its like being around adults who were never taught elementary manners. It takes one aback and is really quite surprising. Nevertheless, it is positively, absolutely, untrustworthy. If you cannot stand, with courage, and speak how it is you really feel and stand firmly where your principals must, then you are a coward and don’t deserve a place as the citizen’s voice. How can one be entrusted to act in the citizen’s interests when you place more importance on your associations within government? Simply said, it is their interests which you are there for in the first place. If you can’t contain your partiality for others in government, subtle or otherwise, it is a clear conflict of interest to your first priorities. Can the citizens trust you to act on their behalf when the time comes, over those of your friendships and whom you owe favors? We can’t tell. Nor trust. That’s not okay.

CHARACTER MATTERS

The fact of the matter is though, that people (regular citizens like you and me) who get elected, bring with them their own individual personalities and psychologies, those which can, in some, be troublesome and problematic, particularly for the citizens and/or The Constitution. (The Affable Authoritarian, The Glad-Hander, The Needy Co-Dependent, The Two-Faced Conniver, The Silent Do-Nothing, all of whom I’ve seen there) Those whose behavior may, or may not be, a detriment to the government and its citizens, that which is not always so obvious. It can be subtle and little noticed at times, particularly if one is either not paying close attention or attention at all (or their bias compels them to look away). This is why information about the candidates extended to inform the voting public is key, that which the citizens must demand of those who ask them to be their elective voice. Information matters because their personalities; what psychologies and behaviors they bring to decision-making once in office, will shape and decide what your future will be and how it will be enacted. That is why there appear to be fountains of information about myself within this blog. I extend it to you out of respect for the voter/citizen and because it is the right thing to do. I have nothing to hide, respect the voters right to know and want to ensure that their obligation (voting) is responsibly applied. I firmly believe that you have a right to know who you’re electing and to examine for yourself information which can help you make an informed, competent decision. That is what I do for you, the voters, as a candidate wishing to serve you. Character and information are vital. There should be no sympathy for those who pay little to no attention in elections and entrust their sacred vote to silent people who then do damage to the city (in a mulititude of ways, small and large) and then complain bitterly about the results of their choices. It is before the election, when the voters have every opportunity and right to investigate and know who is asking to be their representative voice in government, that their thorough inquiries should and must be made to circumvent bad/harmful governing. Otherwise they get exactly what it is that they allowed in, either through commission or ommission. In that, we all lose.

Whitehall is a municipality in Franklin County in the state of Ohio on the North American continent on planet Earth spinning within the Milky Way galaxy surrounded by the vastness of the universe, and while this simple truth puts Whitehall into perspective in the larger scheme, for those of us who call it home, it is the center of our universe. That is what makes Whitehall important when set against the broader picture. It is our home, these are our neighborhoods, it is our city to steer and command as not only we see fit but also to make of as we envision and direct it to be. We. In that, the possibilities are endless and exciting.

This city has the ability to be more than average, let alone below. With enough dedication to honest truth, imagination, creativity and working together, mentally as well as physically for our goals, I believe we can have a city like no other in Central Ohio. Gone should be the days where the same old/same old rules because it keeps giving us, quite frankly, the same old/same old it always has and if you’re like me, I think we can expand beyond that into new territories. Those who came before us, not only in this country but this city as well, laid a solid foundation for us all. I believe, working from that groundwork with a fearless ‘yes’ mentality and a bright, positive belief that we can accomplish anything we want, not only can we have an above-average city but we can have an awesome one too.

The groundwork for our phoenix to rise has been laid out in our city’s all too clear decline, that which we must candidly acknowledge. However, the best thing about having a fall is the clean slate it produces which enables a ripe opportunity to begin anew. That which is ours to participate in together. Not a futile grasp to reclaim what was lost nor a wistful trip back down memory lane to Whitehall’s glory days but rather, glory days anew for us here, now. This cannot be accomplished if the drivers you have chosen are constantly looking in the rearview mirror or pretend that everything is hunky-dory.

What you must demand of those who ask to lead you to this better Whitehall, for your benefit, is not just some level of intelligence or professional acumen but also heaps of common sense and reason, wisdom from life’s experiences, an understanding of life’s bigger pictures, an appreciation for their fellow man, (all of them) honesty, forthrightness, ethics as priority, respect for law and an innate care, belief in and comfort with their fellow citizens. So too, heart. Heart is important. With those to guide them and an active mind, there truly is no limit to how far this city can rise.