During my time fighting what’s wrong at City Hall, people keep asking me, ‘But what are your plans if you get in?’ To them, I offer this and more:

I have already written, extensively, on my thoughts and plans once in Council, as well as my expectations for elected officials, city planning, what should be expected of the citizen’s legislative representatives. It is here:

MY POSITIONS: #1, LEGISLATOR/COUNCILPERSON

and here:

MY POSITIONS: #2 POLICE/CRIME/SAFETY

and here:

I Believe…

and here:

Why Ethics in Public Office Matter

and here:

COUNCIL COMMENTARY #2 Council’s Moral Responsibility

COUNCIL COMMENTARY #4 ‘Punishing Poor People’

and here:

WHITEHALL OHIO: THE CITY OF “NO!”

and here:

AN OPEN LETTER TO WHITEHALL CITIZENS

and here:

CITY HALL IS NOT THERE TO ACT AS A FRIENDSHIP SOCIAL

and here:

SHOULDN’T I KNOW MORE ABOUT THAT GUY WHO WANTS ME TO VOTE FOR HIM? PART ONE

and here:

MY CAMPAIGN WISH LIST FOR MY TIME ON WHITEHALL COUNCIL

and here:

SHOULDN’T I KNOW MORE ABOUT THAT GUY WHO WANTS ME TO VOTE FOR HIM? PART TWO: ETHICS

and here:

IMPACTING OUR COMMUNITY: THE WHITEHALL WORKS DEVELOPMENT BLUEPRINT

(Ask yourself: ^^^^ How many of those who are already on Council and seeking reelection have ever written a 5300 word essay on a city planning document? Truly. What does it say about the dedication of a candidate who’d be willing to take the time to thoroughly dissect a government document for the citizens sake, that which has the power to impact their lives?)

and here:
https://www.thisweeknews.com/news/20191008/qa-whitehall-council-candidates-talk-crime-affordable-housing
and here:

and here:

https://www.thisweeknews.com/news/20191008/qa-whitehall-council-candidates-talk-crime-affordable-housing?fbclid=IwAR32pGAN2w3CQ5gZ0O-8fH_cFDu9SsTKqlEzozb_w5UWbZ_Pmiai2Gf-gc0

and here:

http://c3.thevoterguide.org/v/columbus19/index.do?i=3

And here:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This ^^^^ is all the literature I distributed, door to door in the last 4 years. This, along with all the points presented and argued over 10 years: here, in Council, in Letters to the Editor, on street corners and on Facebook, comprise my wants, desires and feelings about any time I may serve on Whitehall City Council. Compare ALL of that with my opponents, (from 2015):

 

Their non-issuance of information begs the question: why is silence in candidates for public office in Whitehall a seeming requirement to get elected? What is it about them that you want no information to dissect for yourselves? How can they be given blind trust to do as they please with no understanding of their inner viewpoints? These are excellent questions, ones I feel best answered by the citizens themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As you can see by the raft of information I have offered out of respect for the voters/citizens right to know who they’re electing, it is clear who respects the citizens right to know and their capacities of intelligence to understand a host of positions.
Because there is a certain group of people who say that all I do is criticize yet offer up no thoughts, solutions, or considerations for what I plan to do, this is, in part, for them. If at this point, anyone maintains they don’t know what my positions are or what it is that I want from my time in service to the community, that is on them, and them alone. I have fulfilled my civic obligations, more than enough, in this aspect of our democracy. The rest is everyone else’s civic responsibility.

 

 

 

Signs have begun appearing throughout Whitehall which list the three incumbent council members all together, as if they’re part of one voting block. You vote for one, you must vote for all of them. It is wrong on several levels, here is why I feel so:

a) All three seats on our city council are individual seats. They do not come as a set, they are to be won separately by individuals competing for those individual seats. In this case it is Bob Bailey, Gerald Dixon, Karen Conison and Wes Kantor. It is our individual fight to engage in, candidate to candidate, to ‘win’ that seat by how well we present our case for it, to the citizens, who we’ll then represent. That’s it, bottom line. When you go to ‘fight’ someone, a fair fight, you don’t bring your big brother or a gun to a knife fight. Honorable adults fight honorably. With that honor, you bring your best skills for the fight that you can. You don’t put brass knuckles in the boxing gloves, you don’t knee them in the crotch, you fight your best fight, honorably, as men and women and, may the one with the best skills win. That’s it.

This sign, however, doesn’t align with what could be considered an honorable match. This sign is the chloroform in the handkerchief, it is the person who crouches behind the person while the other pushes him over them. It is, simply…an unfair fight. It is ‘3 against 1’. We have a word for that where I was raised but I won’t use it here. How am I, one person, one citizen, trying to do their civic duty, able to fight against that giant? It reminds me of this meme I made last year:

I’m doing the best one man can but, the beast they’ve unleashed is massive.

Of course, the one behind this is Mayor Kim Maggard through her political committee: ‘Citizens for Kim Maggard’. Apparently she doesn’t believe strongly enough in Bailey’s, Kantor’s and Conison’s ability to fight for themselves to allow them to do so, solo and alone. The participation of her position of power here acts as the brass knuckles in the boxing gloves. She’s using her influence to tip the scale for ‘her’ fighter, plain and simply.

Mayor Maggard’s self-interested inclusion into this fight, which is not hers to engage in, has made this an unfair fight. The council members incumbency alone makes it difficult enough for any outside comer to make it in as it is. Her wrongful insertion into this ‘fight’ makes it damned near impossible, and she knows it. That’s why she does it. She counts on the voters not paying attention, that’s why she does most of this stuff and, even when it is brought into the light (usually by me) too many citizens accept the wrong and poo-poo the messenger. I’m sorry but, I thought morality, ethics and honesty was valued in society but, I’m beginning to think that was nothing more than a fairy tale, taught to me by decent, honorable people.

And, this isn’t the first time she’s done this. In 2017, when Chris Rodriguez was doing little to nothing for his campaign for Ward 1, making my efforts seem victorious by comparison, along came a letter, last minute, from the Mayor herself (paid for by ‘Citizen’s for Chris Rodriguez’ but, really, herself. On her 2017 annual campaign finance report, it shows her committee made a $250 donation and a $115 in-kind donation (stamps, paper and envelopes), which means she, ostensibly paid for her own letter distributed!) to put the kibosh on all my efforts. Of course, what this did was throw the win to her pick, rigging the fight in her favor to win. She got her way, ( a Maggard win) and her guy won by 52 votes.

b) There is something set up in our government to ensure that no one person can obtain too much power. It is no less important on the local government landscape than it is nationally. I’m talking about the checks and balances set up in our government between the three branches. Mayor Maggard has circumvented the cautionary spirit of that direction by exerting her will on so many offices (appointments, elected officials) that City Hall should really be called ‘Maggard Hall’ set up by her own political party: ‘The Whitehall Maggard Party’. Her participation in their fight clearly shows her lack of confidence in their strengths and worth as candidates for office. That only with her help would they actually be able to win. Its might over right. Its like bringing a tank onto a debate stage.

People of reasonable and agile minds should be able to sit on councils and make reasonable independent decisions based on nothing other than the merits of the issues set before them, not on whether they’re beholding to another branch of our government for help in getting them into these positions of power in the first place. It is not what our founding fathers intended for our government. If her plans and legislation offer meritorious cases for approval, that is all that is required. It is then up to critically thinking legislators to discern the right of that brought forth to them, by her. Her constant stacking of the deck suggests her plans are only worthy when judged by self-interested yes-people who owe debts to her. Ultimately, they’re all afraid of being exposed for whatever it is they are. Why would anyone ever be afraid of critical analysis if the plan/legislation truly is sound and for the best interests of their community? Her constant need to keep critical analysis at bay speaks volumes about how she truly feels about that which she’s doing. If its value cannot stand under the weight of true scrutiny in order to test its true merits, then it must be flawed to begin with. Sense and reason tells us this is so.

c) What of candidates for office (in particular, ones who have been there for at least 8 years) who don’t speak out against this wrong and continue to look away and silently ignore that which the Mayor does while simultaneously reaping the benefits of her influence? What honor is there in allowing your Mommy to show up at the schoolyard and insert herself between you and the other who you’ve come to engage in with? I would think, at least, it would be embarrassing and at most, a dishonor to your character to allow someone else to fight your fights for you. When one has to rely on undue influence in order to win, it doesn’t speak confidently of their ability to best an opponent fairly, with their own merits. To not speak out, to not utter a word about her wrongful presence says more about their reliance on her to keep their seats for them than it does the merit of their own individual intellectual capacities to do so. Their silence in the face of this wrong speaks volumes about them. Silence is consent.

 

 

In the seminal book, ‘Death and Life of Great American Cities’, Jane Jacobs pointed out the varied workings of cities and neighborhoods and what made them dangerous and what made them safe. Besides having a reasonable amount of usage of sidewalks by varied people at varied times, she wrote about the importance of the eyes on the street to watch what was going on, both by those users of the sidewalks (which compel the resident’s eyes to people watch) and the residents themselves. She wrote, “There must be eyes on the street, eyes belonging to those we might call the natural proprietors of the street.” She claimed these people, “…casually take care of the streets. They notice strangers. They observe everything going on. If they need to take action, whether to direct a stranger waiting in the wrong place or to call the police, they do so.” She understood the importance of the natural guardians of neighborhoods; the well-known, usually strong, caring sort who kept an eye on the street, monitoring who comes and goes, who’s causing trouble, knowing names and faces of those who live or pass through their section of a city and being a strong presence to the neighborhood. In other words, the unsung guardians of a community’s health and safety.

Being a devotee of Ms. Jacobs and understanding the framework of my own personality for guardianship, I have long been an advocate and appreciator of this precept. Now and in the past there has been much talk of ‘neighborhood watch groups’, people that walk the streets of their neighborhoods looking out for crime and, while that may fill a certain purpose at certain times and garners mine and others appreciation, I believe the ‘natural proprietors’ of the streets, those that keep an eye on them 24/7, are able to monitor and enforce the safety of things on a much wider basis. As such, I believe more strongly in their efficacy. Given that then, and given our current city administration’s business-centric focus over what I feel is our city’s true value, its citizens, I’ve decided it was high time to honor and publicly highlight those citizens in our town who fit this description. It is long overdue and my pleasure to promote.

---

Stewards of the Block #1

Meet the Leggetts; Royden and Stacey. They are the natural guardians of Duke Road in the Country Club Village area. Both have been here 62 years, 18 of them on Duke Road. Married 29 years, they live with their two dogs and two cats. Roy is a disabled Vietnam veteran and Minister. They tell me they simply want to live a ‘normal life’ and be of help and a good example to the neighborhood.

While there, Stacey had a strong hand on the dogs behavior and several times, as children and others came up and down the street and cars pulled up, they were alert to the varying situations that arose. One kid had lost control of his Pug dog’s leash and the dog came onto the Leggetts property chasing their cat. Roy was able to grab the leash and return the dog to the boy, gently reminding him to keep ahold of his dog. Stacey told me who on the block were also good neighbors, thereby signaling that there was a network of ‘proprietors’ on Duke who monitored its health and safety. As I sat there, it occurred to me that they were the natural guardians of their block and that is where the idea for this citizen promotion came to me.

Police monitor the community but they can’t be everywhere at all times. Legislation can be introduced and passed to monitor behavior and actions detrimental to the community’s quality of life but, in mine and Ms. Jacobs belief, it is citizens like the Leggetts who form the real spine and most effective tool for a community’s health and safety that we have. No amount of developers or code enforcement could buy or produce the kind of value they provide. For that, I salute Royden and Stacey Leggett as the first Stewards of the Block and thank them for their true civic contribution to Whitehall.

Thanks Roy and Stacey!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Throughout the years I’ve been communicating with my fellow Whitehallians, while there has been occasional criticism because people found my writings ‘too hard’, I’ve always strived hardest to give you the most factual, in-depth reporting on goings on at City Hall that I could, above all else. It is what I owe you in reporting on that which is going on in our collective government. Several times, people with whom I seek counsel, advised me to ‘know my audience’ and to ‘dumb-down’ my writings to make them easier for more people to read. Here is why I never listened to them, to my communication’s detriment or not:

I am merely a son of Whitehall, born and raised here. Son of a bartender Father who didn’t graduate high school and a salesperson Mother with some college but no degree. Myself educated at East Broad elementary, Robinwood elementary, Rosemore Junior High and WYHS. While I did take courses and classes related to my acting in NYC and L.A., as well as read scores of books on varied topics due to my curiosity of life; I really have no more than a high school diploma. I was raised here in Whitehall with the varied types you would see most anywhere. Who am I then to think I can be better than I’ve ever been? I’m just a schmoe from a 5 square mile suburb of Columbus Ohio, right? Well, what a ridiculous notion that is and which to ever allow yourself to remain mired in. It really comes down to what everyone is taught, that they have infinite capabilities and capacities as human beings and that, if you apply yourself, rise in education levels, you can have a happy and fulfilling life. As such, I heard them and applied it to my own life, nothing more than any other ‘schmoe’ could’ve done for themselves, that’s all.

So, outside of the typical high school education the majority of us has taken, it is my curiosity and love of books; the written word, that helped me to self-elevate my education. It is no more than that.

Personally, in regard to my use of ‘big words’, as an artist, I see words as the medium and the page as the canvas. As such, words aren’t merely ‘roy g biv’ but rather the infinite hues created by that spectrum. To say that words must only be one and two syllables to be understandable is to do an injustice to the myriad ways to describe people and life and our environs. I do not write and speak like this to put on airs nor to impress anyone but, rather, to paint pictures with the rainbow of colors at my disposal, nothing more.

---

My Grandmother always kept a dictionary on every floor of her home. She was also a reader and told me that her Mother taught her that whenever you came upon a word you didn’t know, you merely had to look it up in the dictionary and once you grasped its meaning, the word was yours forever. I am merely the end result of decades of that teaching: making words ‘mine forever’. Its called educating oneself. It has always been the ideal we strove for in society: to make ourselves better and elevate our education as people. This is what I was taught and thought the norm. As such, I followed that example: reading/education: good, ignorance/uneducated: bad.

---

I know and understand Whitehall’s historical roots: working class, and while others may not expect much of certain people, I always felt everyone deserved an equal measure of consideration and respect. I have chatted with and given equal regard and respect, both to a homeless man and a Billionaire. I do so because I must respect and assume their capacities for understanding and knowledge and not treat them differently merely because they come from different stations in life. To do so is disrespectful.

So then, out of respect for others and believing in their education and capacities for understanding, I spoke and wrote as I do given what I’ve absorbed. I also gave others the benefit of the doubt, that they were smart enough to understand what I was communicating, and if they didn’t, like Councilman Wes Kantor said to me once, he’d “look up a word he didn’t understand so he’d know what I was saying”. I must give him credit for that task. It’s really as simple as that. That is why I’ve refused to ‘dumb things down’ for anyone.

Our role in this society we share is to elevate ourselves and others towards enlightenment, not undercut and darken established enlightenment simply to make things more easily grasped for those who refuse to elevate themselves. If that is a failure in communication by me, so be it. There seems to be a greater acceptance of lowering ones standards than ever before, you merely have to read letters from simply-educated young men in the Civil War to understand how this is true. As such, I feel like a standard-bearer in this department. I refuse to be a part of that slide into an Idiocracy. If only one person is able to read and comprehend what I’ve written or, I inspire one person to be better than themselves, then my writings are a success. We rise or sink by what we allow in our lives and while I personally was raised in some unfortunate situations, I’ve never allowed them to keep me down or remain mired in them. For a healthy society, I expect and believe the same of others.

 

 

There are several things I’d like to share in regard to the in-depth report by OHM, commissioned by the city and recently shared with Whitehall’s Council. However, this will not be that post. Here, rather, you’ll find copies of specific pages of the report, annotated with my observations and feelings on the information being given. If you want to view the entire 102 pages of the report (like I did) you can go to:

whitehallworks.com (where you can also still add commentary)

Pages which aren’t included here were either blank or contained information I felt fine with and so felt no need to comment on it or share here. The pages on this post caught my eye for a variety of reasons: those related to my fight with what I’ve exhaustively claimed is City Hall’s disreputable behavior, the current and rising positioning of governments as authoritarians tasked with getting their populace to tow the ‘company line’, where greed supersedes humans/citizens and those in charge of everything introduce a bland corporate standardization where individuality, personality and liberty are only as welcome as benefits the ‘powers that be’ (and the bottom line) and resistance to implementation of THE PLAN is intolerable.

Being as there is far too much glad-handing, nodding agreeability that stands in for sound judgement in Whitehall with so little critical thinking to balance any and everything, I felt duty-bound to offer up that critical thinking in light of its lacks presence elsewhere. However, just because one uses critical thinking to get to the true meat of matters doesn’t mean that one is not in support otherwise. The fact is that I largely agree with this plans wider tenets. Those which I was in agreement with long before it was even commissioned; when I brought a copy of ‘The Death and Life of Great American Cities’ by Jane Jacobs to Whitehall City Hall to proffer as a gift to the city of my birth. That gift which was thrown back at me disrespectfully and derisively, the tenets of which, largely, they have all so approvingly jumped on board with when it was their efforts to bring it to the community, but which I was ignorantly given the collective backs of their hands for 10 years ago.

Regardless of that everlasting disrespect, the majority of this plan’s ideas are in alignment with what I’ve long understood and championed. I do have concerns, worries and reservations, those which I’ll share in another post on the matter.

As for OHM themselves, my issues are not with them. I applaud their work. It is exhaustive as well as skillfully and professionally executed. My concerns rather, lie both with larger disturbing sociological trends in government, business and development and with those at Whitehall City Hall who don’t understand deeper ramifications of city planning, don’t care about poor people, favor the wealthy over the poor and business over people and whose consistent betrayal to this city’s historical population demographic: the working middle-class, drives my fight and my rightly-placed anger towards them. It’s my belief they want to govern a city of people they favor, not the ones they have. And so it is.

For now, here are my annotated pages:

In my time fighting the wrong at Whitehall City Hall, I have presented loads of information, that which primarily backs up my charges of moral corruption at City Hall, which includes abuse of power and ignoring civil rights to get done what they wish. My charges are bolstered by eye witnessing, paper trails, video, and putting it all together with logic using critical analysis to make this citizens case against what I feel is a systemically corrupt status quo. As one can imagine, this causes a lot of irritation and outrage amongst, not only those at City Hall, but their families, friends and supporters. I don’t make these charges lightly and I have backed them up with an exhaustive and singular dedication through all the connected dots I’ve proffered.

In this fight I have come up against several, let’s call them ‘angry bees’, furious that I would call out their beloved mayor/councilperson, etc. Some have understood the traditions of protest and free speech and respected the rules of engagement as far as argument is concerned. I do not profess to know all but what I do know, I am confident in. I am more than willing to discuss these important findings and matters with anyone of reasoned intelligence and learned capacities. Sadly, at least on social media, that is too often not what greets me in counterpoint. A lot of it is furious but shallow viewpoints hellbent, not on proving me wrong with educated opinion based on clear and reasoned evidence, but rather, to simply discredit my voice against those they have relations with, vested interests in or simply support at City Hall. Forget wrongdoing, forget ethical principles, forget adherence to traditional principles of right and justice and obligation to serving citizens in a reliably moral manner; what is more important here is seeing the reporter of that wrong being done by elected officials, silenced and defeated. This has been the motivation of some since day one. They want me most of all, to shut up.

The power structure of this tenacious beast at City Hall is stupendous. Why wouldn’t their fierceness in yielding it be just as stupendous? Vested interest and power-clutching and willful ignorance combined make for formidable fighters in the arena in which they fight. My arena, however, lies in truth, logical reasoning, learned opinion, critical analysis and a stalwart demand for their adherence to ethical principles in the citizen’s names they serve. And a healthy dose of brass balls. Let’s not forget those. Fighting in their arena, with their weapons (manipulation, misinformation, power juggernaut) without fighters amassed with me is a long slog to any kind of definable success (that which their supporters claim to be clueless about). However, in the arena I fight, success is guaranteed only so long as other citizens amass to fight with me, stand with me, in this just battle. Our small corner of America is worth the fight. That’s how I see it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So then, we come to the reason for this post: an example of the sort of ‘spears’ thrown at me from various arms of the status quo, in this case a Maggard supporter livid with me and the fight I engage in.
For years, I treated the throwers of these ‘spears’ with the respect we owe our fellow man, using the rules of argument civilized society engages in. It finally became apparent with some however, that engaging in civilized, logical, reasoned argument, which included education on important matters and actually reading and comprehending this blog’s posts to inform their arguments, was something they weren’t really interested in. Theirs seemed to be a self-interested program bent only on muddying and deflecting and derailing conversation from the truth in order to silence the important information I was bringing forth, done so, I claim, as a means only to mitigate damage and bolster those whom they support. Their presentations, while always wrapped up in an illusion of ‘argument’, (meant to fool the uninformed into thinking they were reasonable people without vested interests who were making valid points) was merely to discredit the hard work I’ve done and continue to do. Here then is a perfect example of one of their most recent ‘spears’:

Were it all only as simple as this person makes it out to be. This person, who is very vocal on Facebook pages, asserts that if I suggest that the Mayor and others are breaking laws and there is corruption at City Hall, that I should merely call the police, clearly not understanding how our processes work. That alone is the most delectable cherry on top of this sundae of forceful, confident ignorance.

A few years ago I sat down with former Chief of Police Richard Zitzke and had a conversation on several topics. Something said at that discussion surprised me. I said something about ‘law enforcement’ and he corrected me, telling me that, if memory serves me right, that, rather, they’re peace officers. Here is an excellent article on the difference:

“Peace Officers” vs. “Law Enforcement Officers”

As such, the “cops” aren’t there for every purpose. Generally its more for crimes like burglaries, spousal abuse, drug selling, traffic infractions, accidents, etc. In other words: keeping the peace. Corruption in government doesn’t generally fall under their purview.

---

(Ringing of phone…)

Hello. Police Dispatch.

Yes, my name is Gerald Dixon and I’d like to report corruption of city officials at City Hall.

Pardon me?

I believe that there is unethical immoral behavior on the parts of city hall officials which I would characterize as systemic moral political corruption and so I want the police to go and knock on their doors.

(click)

---

 

This person’s notion of how things work is, quite honestly, ignorant. Yet it doesn’t stop them from earnestly lambasting me with it, making me out to be the crank from the limited understanding of their argument.  It’s the level of their anger directed at me borne out of this ignorance that compels me (reticently) to say this, and respond.
In trying to do the right things and change what is truly wrong here in Whitehall, this difficult task I’ve engaged in is made even more difficult to achieve because of the likes of people like this who pepper social media; not with reasoned, respectful argument based on educated opinions and personal critical analysis but rather, with strident ignorance and nonsensically uneducated opinions, making the community conversation forums akin to having tea and civilized conversation in a dense cloud of mayflies; it’s impossible.
It is not my interest or enjoyment to go around calling people ignorant but when they so foolishly swagger into the argument with such impotent (and ignorant) ‘weaponry’, they leave me no recourse in this fight for right other than to ‘parry’ where they have so foolishly ‘thrust’.

So, lets talk about this corruption that I’ve charged City Hall with which this person seems ‘confused’ about. (As if I haven’t made my case by now in over 100 blog posts…My responses to official definitions will be in red.)

I have consistently accused the Mayor and others at City Hall of abuse of the public trust, that which they’ve consistently ignored and undermined with their careless behavior and actions. The untrustworthy quid pro quo nature of their inter-support, the untrustworthy underhanded behavior in reaching and keeping power, the untrustworthy abuse of power to exert plans and schemes and rob people of the true value of their properties and the untrustworthy cavalier attitude towards civil rights, as reported on here:

THE ARGUMENT AGAINST MAYOR MAGGARD’S ENDORSEMENTS

and here:

WHY WHITEHALL’S GOVERNANCE IS SO AWFUL AND BROKEN

and here:

A RIGHTFUL INDICTMENT OF YOUR REPRESENTATIVES ON WHITEHALL CITY COUNCIL.

and here:

WOODCLIFF v WHITEHALL: WHAT LIES BENEATH

and here:

WOODCLIFF v WHITEHALL (PART TWO) THE PIRATES OF WHITEHALL

and here:

THE PETTY TYRANNY OF WHITEHALL CODE ENFORCEMENT (PART TWO)

and here:

THE PETTY TYRANNY OF WHITEHALL CODE ENFORCEMENT (PART FIVE) ***CITY COUNCIL EDITION***

Etcetera, etcetera, ad infinitum…. give compelling evidence to bolster the charges made.

1. “In the American system of government, citizens cast votes for the candidate that they believe will most reliably accomplish the business of governance. This system implies a high amount of trust between elected officials and their constituents.
   Any official that uses the power of an elected political office for personal gain or for a personal agenda is abusing the trust of that office. Such actions are considered political corruption.” *
2. “Legal and Moral Corruption

Corruption is derived from the Latin verb rumpere, to break. According to this approach, corruption is where the law is clearly broken (or moral standards of a community). This requires that all laws must be precisely stated, leaving no doubts about their meaning and no discretion to the public officials. A legal interpretation of corruption provides a clearly demarcated boundary between what is a corrupt activity and what is not. ‘If an official’s act is prohibited by laws established by the government, it is corrupt; if it is not prohibited, it is not corrupt even if it is abusive or unethical’. (John A. Gardiner, 1993. “Defining Corruption.” In: Corruption and Reform 7)”
As such then, if the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution, bolstered by the Supreme Court decision Camara v Municipal Court, warns against intrusion by government agents stepping onto private property without owner/occupant consent and/or a warrant signed by a judge, and code officers do so with neither, then, according to this article on corruption, the official in charge of this behavior (which is clearly prohibited by law), the mayor, is therefore corrupt. 
“…An understanding of corruption from law perspective serves to underline a deterioration of self-regulated behaviour and a dependence on the legal approach to determine right from wrong.”
This self-regulated behavior which I claim has always been relied on as a social norm, i.e.- trustworthy behavior, ethical integrity, etc., because of the actions of some, must now be kept an eagle eye on. (I’m looking at you Whitehall officials)

“Morality is increasingly being legislated for in the absence of and a loss of faith in self regulated behaviour. (IMPORTANT!!!!): Although an act is committed within legal parameters it may lie outside moral boundaries. A corrupt act can be camouflaged by lawful justification.“ (Woodcliff, Woodcliff, Woodcliff)  (D. Kaufmann, September 2006, Corruption, Governance and Security. In: World Economic Forum. Global Competitiveness Report 2004/2005.)

“From this perspective corruption encompasses undue influence over public policies, institutions, laws and regulations by vested private interests at the expense of the public interest. Cultural change, rather than legal change, may be necessary to impede corrupt behaviour. Non-corrupt actions may be within the letter of the law but do not account for the spirit of the law. 
Above taken from Elaine Byrne, 2007. The Moral and Legal Development of Corruption: Nineteeth and Twentieth Century Corruption in Ireland. PhD Thesis, University of Limerick**
So, to answer their ‘spear’, not every corruption is illegal and sometimes it is a change by the public that’s necessary to stop the corrupt behavior, neither of which are under the purview of the ‘cops’. THAT is why the ‘cops’ have never been called and why I’ve used whatever means available to me; this blog, social media, to excite the change needed from the citizens to impede the corrupt behavior for our community. Is that clear?

---

As stated above, “Although an act is committed within legal parameters it may lie outside moral boundaries. A corrupt act can be camouflaged by lawful justification.” Not everything that is done is done illegally but, the spirit of law is not always so cut and dried. Having a plan for the land Woodcliff sits on and then using the city’s processes to undermine it and make it viable for the city’s acquisition, while perhaps remaining in the boundaries of the law, is corrupt practice, in particular moral and political. I say our government’s processes are not there to take advantage of for their schemes and plans, particularly in an immoral way, as was the case with Woodcliff.

This is a piece in Wikipedia on political corruption. It is a list of actions/behaviors they say are ripe for corruption (Let’s see how many pertain to Whitehall. I included Wikipedia’s whole list so you could see what pertained and didn’t pertain to Whitehall):***
It is argued that the following conditions are favorable for corruption:
Information deficits
(As far as information deficits, they’ll tell you what polishes their reputations in the public eye but leave out a lot of things which, unless you’re keeping an eagle eye on everything (like me), could hurt their reputations.)  
•Lacking freedom of information legislation. In contrast, for example: The Indian Right to Information Act 2005 is perceived to have “already engendered mass movements in the country that is bringing the lethargic, often corrupt bureaucracy to its knees and changing power equations completely.”[35]
√•Lack of investigative reporting in the local media.[36] (With the exception of myself, nobody in our Central Ohio media investigate anything in Whitehall’s governance. The Whitehall News certainly doesn’t hold the mayor or any other elected leader’s feet to the fire. It seems nobody else cares about deeper issues within city hall. Mayor Maggard has gotten off scott-free in her administration’s governance from the wider media outlets and most certainly the vast majority of the too-trusting public who’ve given her little scrutiny.)
√•Contempt for or negligence of exercising freedom of speech and freedom of the press. (A few years ago they instituted a ‘poll public card’ that you had to fill out in order to speak, essentially putting up an intimidating roadblock to speaking which is already intimidating enough for people. While they have since rescinded its use, the president of council tends to waver in the time allotments given based on who is going to speak or what they’re speaking on or what he wants, or not, said aloud in public.)
•Weak accounting practices, including lack of timely financial management.
åLack of measurement of corruption. For example, using regular surveys of households and businesses in order to quantify the degree of perception of corruption in different parts of a nation or in different government institutions may increase awareness of corruption and create pressure to combat it. This will also enable an evaluation of the officials who are fighting corruption and the methods. (Just recently, they did a survey which asked a lot of questions which skirted these issues because if you ask the question of corruption, that suggests there may be some.)
•Tax havens which tax their own citizens and companies but not those from other nations and refuse to disclose information necessary for foreign taxation. This enables large-scale political corruption in the foreign nations.[37][citation needed]

Lacking control of the government.
åLacking civic society and non-governmental organizations which monitor the government. (There is no specific group with this important task acting as a government watchdog entity.)
√•An individual voter may have a rational ignorance regarding politics, especially in nationwide elections, since each vote has little weight. (I have heard and read from too many citizens their dislike and lack of information in regard to ‘politics’.)
•Weak civil service, and slow pace of reform.
•Weak rule of law.
•Weak legal profession.
√•Weak judicial independence. (While one may not receive the most fair treatment from a Mayor’s Court (The mayor compels code officers who go out and write notices which compel people into (here its called Magistrate’s Court) court to stand before a person the Mayor appointed who decides your fate) it is doubly disconcerting and questioning of the court’s independence for justice’s sake when the magistrate appointed has donated to the Mayor’s campaign. See below)

•Lacking protection of whistleblowers.
•Lack of benchmarking, that is continual detailed evaluation of procedures and comparison to others who do similar things, in the same government or others, in particular comparison to those who do the best work. The Peruvian organization Ciudadanos al Dia has started to measure and compare transparency, costs, and efficiency in different government departments in Peru. It annually awards the best practices which has received widespread media attention. This has created competition among government agencies in order to improve.[38]
•Individual officials routinely handle cash, instead of handling payments by giro or on a separate cash desk – illegitimate withdrawals from supervised bank accounts are much more difficult to conceal.
•Public funds are centralized rather than distributed. For example, if $1,000 is embezzled from a local agency that has $2,000 funds, it is easier to notice than from a national agency with $2,000,000 funds. See the principle of subsidiarity.
√•Large, unsupervised public investments. (If there are entities supervising things like the purchase of the Commons at Royal Landing and the strip shopping center on Hamilton Road and the Woodcliff purchase and distribution, I’m not aware.)
•Pay disproportionately lower than that of the average citizen.
•Government licenses needed to conduct business, e.g., import licenses, encourage bribing and kickbacks.
åLong-time work in the same position may create relationships inside and outside the government which encourage and help conceal corruption and favoritism. Rotating government officials to different positions and geographic areas may help prevent this; for instance certain high rank officials in French government services (e.g. treasurer-paymasters general) must rotate every few years.
åCostly political campaigns, with expenses exceeding normal sources of political funding, especially when funded with taxpayer money.
(2011 Mayoral race: Kim Maggard- $7182, Chris Parkevich- $225: Outspent him by almost 32 to 1.
2015 Mayoral race: Kim Maggard- $21,724, Leslie LaCorte- $8735. Outspent her by almost 3 to 1.
2018 3rd Term extension vote: Yes to extend terms- $39,600, No to keep 2 terms- $1595 Pro term limit extension committee outspent the other by almost 25 to 1.)
Someone doesn’t just want Kim Maggard in office, they need her in office.

•A single group or family controlling most of the key government offices. Lack of laws forbidding and limiting number of members of the same family to be in office .
•Less interaction with officials reduces the opportunities for corruption. For example, using the Internet for sending in required information, like applications and tax forms, and then processing this with automated computer systems. This may also speed up the processing and reduce unintentional human errors. See e-Government.
•A windfall from exporting abundant natural resources may encourage corruption.[39] (See Resource curse)
•War and other forms of conflict correlate with a breakdown of public security.
Social conditions
√•Self-interested closed cliques and “old boy networks”. (This one is HUGE in Whitehall and everyone knows it. It is a cancer on our form of government and on our community. The way to get into it though is be their friend, give them campaign donations and kiss a lot of figurative ass.)
åFamily-, and clan-centered social structure, with a tradition of nepotism/favouritism being acceptable.
•A gift economy, such as the Soviet blat system, emerges in a Communist centrally planned economy.
√•Lacking literacy and education among the population. (The level of literacy or education among the population is a thing unto itself (see above ‘spear’). Those in City Hall take advantage of whatever does exist for their own benefit.)
•Frequent discrimination and bullying among the population.
åTribal solidarity, giving benefits to certain ethnic groups. In India for example, the political system, it has become common that the leadership of national and regional parties are passed from generation to generation.[40][41]
creating a system in which a family holds the center of power. Some examples are most of the Dravidian parties of south India and also the Congress party, which is one of the two major political parties in India. (While what goes on here in Whitehall is not the same as this article characterizes this aspect, this ‘Team’ at City Hall acts in solidarity amongst each other. I blame Mayor Maggard of stocking this ‘tribe’ for her own ultimate benefit.)
•Lack of strong laws which forbid members of the same family to contest elections and be in office as in India where local elections are often contested between members of the same powerful family by standing in opposite parties so that whoever is elected that particular family is at tremendous benefit.

So, 13 of the 32 benchmarks used to suggest corruption in government are apparent in Whitehall City Hall. Two…even five to eight might be understandable but thirteen?! The signs, the proof of corruption are everywhere through City Hall. It is clear, in light of all that I’ve presented, that the person who wrote the Facebook post and others like it, (and their ilk) simply has a vendetta against me because I won’t suffer their foolishness against the seriousness of that which I charge those whom they support. I suggest they suspend this false apoplectic rage used for the ultimate benefit of the ‘Team’ in City Hall and instead turn their attention to supporting the US Constitution and ethical principles of elected officials in office. As for me, I always thought those two things were where citizens allegiances were supposed to lie.

Finally, a note on my purported ‘sour grapes’ over losing two elections, I will say this: five years before I ever ran for office, I stood up on our street corners and at City Hall and made clear what my efforts were about; calling out corruption and wrongdoing at City Hall. I did it long before I ever ran and I have consistently done it after my failures to achieve office. My efforts in righting wrongs in Whitehall’s governance has never been about personal gains or failures but about what is right. Read through my blogposts; the themes, the pleading for the right thing being done in the citizen’s names, that has never waivered or changed, nor will it ever. I believe wholeheartedly in the virtue of my fight, how else could one individual have fought an entire city hall for as long as I have? It is for justice, coupled with my spirit of tenacity and purpose that drive me. Ultimately, I give a damn about people and the community of Whitehall itself. I’d always been under the impression that it was the obligation of all of us to give a damn. Call me crazy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*https://www.houstoncrimedefense.com/blog/4-types-of-political-corruption/
**http://elaine.ie/2009/07/31/definitions-and-types-of-corruption/
***https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_corruption

Recently, candidates interested in running for office in Whitehall had to accumulate the signatures of 30 registered voters and turn them in by a certain date to be considered for the November ballot. From there a candidate’s signatures had to be verified by the Franklin County Board of Elections (FCBE). Once the required signatures were verified and all paperwork was properly filled out, the FCBE would certify your candidacy with a letter and certificate.

---

Let’s start with the stats. Here they are:

Most signatures gathered for a petition?   Councilman Wes Kantor with 64.

Candidates to get all their own signatures themselves?   Karen Conison, Kim Maggard, Gerald Dixon and Wes Kantor.

Out of 12 elected officials at City Hall and numerous political appointees in the city (Parks commission, Planning commission, etc., (most of them appointed by Mayor Maggard) remember: political appointees can be part of the quid pro quo element of ‘The Team’ too) the number of each that candidates got in their petitions:*
Kim Maggard:   Elected officials-11 Political appointees-5
Jim Graham:   Elected officials-11 Political appointees-7
Bob Bailey:   Elected officials-11 Political appointees-1
Karen Conison:   Elected officials-11 Political apptointees-1
Tom Potter:   Elected officials-11 Political appointees-2
Wes Kantor:   Elected officials-6 Political appointees-7
Gerald Dixon:   Elected officials-0 Political appointees-0

Tom Potter, who helmed the ‘Extend the Progress’ campaign to get three terms for elected officials into law, had help circulating petitions from Mayor Maggard (quid pro quo?), who got him 21 signatures and former Councilman and City Attorney Mike Shannon, who got him 16. Of his total 50 signatures, Mr. Potter only got 13 (11 of which were elected officials!). Doesn’t this guy know enough regular citizens to get his own signatures? It gives the appearance he’s getting into City Hall to work for the insiders and not the actual citizens who he would ostensibly be serving.

Bob Bailey also had help circulating his petitions from Ward 1 Councilman Chris Rodriguez, who got 14 signatures, and Auditor Dan Miller, who got 18. Bob was only able to pull in 8 signatures, 5 of which were elected officials! I say this is lazy on the candidate’s part. They want the job but not the work required to go and visit with the actual citizens?

Every official associated with City Hall bolstered their petition’s signatures with elected or politically appointed names: Over 50% of the Mayor’s required signatures were political insiders. Jim Graham, who only got 3 more signatures than needed, was bolstered by over half with 18 insider signatures. The least of the politically insider signatures accumulated by political insiders were Bob Bailey and Karen Conison with 12. (That’s still over a third) Tim Mouzon, who was running for at-Large council, got more signatures than the President of Council!

The least signatures of political insiders at City Hall:   Myself, Gerald Dixon, with zero**

---

 

Now, normally, the signatures on a petition are neither here nor there in regard to the politics of a campaign. One is simply gathering signatures of residents in order to run for office. Very American. This time though, given the recent manipulation by ‘The Team‘ at City Hall for a third term for them all and a comment on Facebook by a former councilperson mentioning how the status quo always get each other to sign their petitions, it struck me that this all was simply another example of that concern/complaint I’ve been making now for years: that this inter-donating, inter-efforts helping each other are what causes the political juggernaut of ‘The Family’ to exist, that which helps keep the same people in the status quo in place year after year after year. Thus then the reason I decided to write this post. The results of my look into the petitions reveal the interesting statistics above and that my oft-repeated assertion, which I’ve claimed about them now for years, has merit. Patterns matter.

WHITEHALL LEADER’S A TO Z MANIPULATION LEADING TO ISSUE 37 (THE TERM LIMITS QUESTION)

Here is a chart, below, I made to show you, graphically, how all this goes. The candidates are in bold and underlined, each with their own color and the elected officials who signed their petitions are underneath them.

As you can see, its the same old orgy of reciprocity at Whitehall City Hall: ‘you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours’, ‘we’re here for each other’, ‘to hell with the separation of powers set up by the Founding Fathers’. As I have said before; this sort of quid pro quo mutuality with each other creates a wall that is so impenetrable, only toadying go-alongs who sacrifice their independent voices to the juggernaut can ever penetrate it in elections. If you speak truth to power and want to serve the public, it is near impossible to get elected up against this Frankensteinian creation. They’ve got all the power of incumbencies and titles and the behemoth of ‘The Team‘ which they’ve assembled to roll right over any stand-up candidates who won’t tow the line of their demands of silence and allegiance, particularly as it relates to the immorality and duplicity of the ‘Team leader’, who uses this behemoth to help them into office.

As an example:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Signatures on petitions were determined by visual approximation. If there were more political appointees on petitions, they passed my notice due to illegibility.

**Here is why there are zero political insiders on my petitions: I am trying to get elected to council as the citizen’s representative. As such, ethical propriety tells me that I should keep a certain level of professional distance between myself and those who serve in City Hall simply because intertwining too much in relations with elected officials can lead to levels of favoritism and ‘debt’ amongst each other. For me, I believe it is important to keep as much independence as a public servant as possible in order to most maximally serve the citizens one is there to serve in the first place. If I have any ‘debt’ or favoritism, I believe it should be to the public, not the public servants.