At last week’s Council Committee meeting, several of the councilmen asked questions and seemed to be using critical thinking skills to get answers (see video below). They had reservations about a proposed electrical substation over by Poth Road and they voiced them. The underlying motivation, for now, is irrelevant at this moment of celebration so we’ll just pay no mind to that for now. The fact is that Councilmen Morrison and Bailey (largely) had issues with something and articulated them. Mr. Morrison in particular. This is the 2nd time I’ve seen him make complete sense in when and if a particular piece of legislation should come before council for a vote (the other time it was design standards for a 2nd phase of apartments at the old Swimland). Its my opinion they should do this more often. Critical thinking is a valuable commodity which should be used for the fuller benefit of outcomes for our community (said the citizen to his representatives in government).

God bless us everyone!

Guardian: noun   One that guards

Time magazine just named its Person(s) of the Year, the guardians. Here is an article about the choice followed by excerpts I thought mirrored my own stance and fight here in Whitehall. See if you see the similarities.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the-guardians/ar-BBQNDh1?ocid=spartandhp

Excerpts:

“The stout man with the gray goatee and the gentle demeanor dared to disagree with his country’s government.”

But the crime would not have remained atop the world news for two months if not for the epic themes that Khashoggi himself was ever alert to, and spent his life placing before the public. His death laid bare the true nature of a smiling prince, the utter absence of morality in the Saudi-U.S. alliance and—in the cascade of news feeds and alerts, posts and shares and links—the centrality of the question Khashoggi was killed over: Whom do you trust to tell the story?

Khashoggi put his faith in bearing witness. He put it in the field reporting he had done since youth, in the newspaper editorship he was forced out of and in the columns he wrote from lonely exile. “Must we choose,” he asked in the Washington Post in May, “between movie theaters and our rights as citizens to speak out, whether in support of or critical of our government’s actions?” Khashoggi had fled his homeland last year even though he actually supported much of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s agenda in Saudi Arabia. What irked the kingdom and marked the journalist for death was Khashoggi’s insistence on coming to that conclusion on his own, tempering it with troubling facts and trusting the public to think for itself.

Such independence is no small thing. It marks the distinction between tyranny and democracy. And in a world where budding authoritarians have advanced by blurring the difference, there was a clarity in the spectacle of a tyrant’s fury visited upon a man armed only with a pen. Because the strongmen of the world only look strong. All despots live in fear of their people. To see genuine strength, look to the spaces where individuals dare to describe what’s going on in front of them.

This ought to be a time when democracy leaps forward, an informed citizenry being essential to self-government. Instead, it’s in retreat. Three decades after the Cold War defeat of a blunt and crude autocracy, a more clever brand takes nourishment from the murk that surrounds us. The old-school despot embraced censorship. The modern despot, finding that more difficult, foments mistrust of credible fact, thrives on the confusion loosed by social media and fashions the illusion of legitimacy from supplicants.”

‘”Modern misinformation”, says David Patrikarakos, author of the book War in 140 Characters, titled after the original maximum length of a Twitter post, “does not function like traditional propaganda. It tries to muddy the waters. It tries to sow as much confusion and as much misinformation as possible, so that when people see the truth, they find it harder to recognize.”

Summation:

Standing up to authoritarians and tyrants in government seems to be a more daunting task these days. While I claim no connection to any journalism degrees or titles, I am still a citizen, a town crier if you will, reporting on my government’s less honorable behaviors and actions, that which gets me a lot of backlash and upset. I take it as par for the course. It is a task I’ve undertaken and stood resolute in. There is wrong and I am unbowed in my efforts to chisel away at the granite of the citizen’s disbelief, apoplectic fury and vested interests of those who want me to take my “big, stupid words” and “shut up!”, “move” and “be gone with you!” After all, wrong is wrong is wrong.

To the left is a photo of myself with a gift a Whitehall citizen gave me in light of my efforts to stand up to wrong in my government and speak out. It is a print of Norman Rockwell’s ‘Four Freedom’s’ series of paintings (Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship, Freedom from Want and Freedom from Fear), this is ‘Freedom of Speech’. Nick Purdin, who ran the ‘No on Issue 37’ Facebook page told me he saw this in a building he frequented and looking at it, he’d always thought of me. He ordered the print online and gave it to me as a gift. It is the most important and meaningful thing I’ve received in connection to my work trying to right wrongs here in my hometown of Whitehall and worth much more than any council seat.

Attended the planning meeting for the dog park last night at City Hall and wanted to give an update on what’s going on.

In the council chambers they had set up an easel with a mock up of the proposed dog park that we’ve seen before. There were no chairs in the room to sit so it was not a ‘meeting’ per se. Across from the easel were two more displays, blank, with post-it note pads nearby to write down questions, concerns and comments. Outside of city employees, appointees, council members and their spouses, the mayor, Parks and Rec Director Sorrell and various people who are part of the status quo, there were maybe only 30 people at best with only, perhaps, 10 or so people who weren’t connected to City Hall.

There were questions of Ms. Sorrell by various people, including myself. I like Ms. Sorrell and believe she does a nice job. She answered all the questions thoroughly, with enthusiasm, as best she was able. I came away with a sense of trust in them doing the project right, in all aspects from safety to drainage to making certain all aspects of its success are, with foresight and diligence, taken care of thoroughly. In that I’m letting it go. I believe her when she says she’s gonna do the right thing and so, leave it at that.

However, I did speak with her about the lack of proactive communication with the residents and citizens about its placement before it was decided. I told her the nature of a dog park, with sanitation and environmental and noise issues was certainly worthy of alerting citizens to prior to the decision to place it somewhere, particularly in the middle of a residential neighborhood. It’s be like them allowing a scrapyard to be put there without letting the residents know beforehand. There might be some questions and concerns. Whether Ms. Sorrell is the ultimate one to be held responsible for this disrespect to the citizens, her ultimate response was, paraphrasing: ‘well, next time we’ll make sure to let citizens know beforehand’. That’s simply not good enough and, of course, no one will be held accountable for the string of disrespects, like that, to Whitehall citizens.

Honestly, I have to blame our CEO, the Mayor, for this. She does as she pleases, often to her political benefit, to the detriment of respect, public trust, ethical principles, etc. It was terribly disrespectful to the taxpayers who will be footing the bill for this dog park to not inform them of its location, let alone all those within a 4 block radius who will be impacted by its location choice. Utterly disrespectful. It will be interesting to see if anyone on council stands up for the citizens they’re supposed to be representing during this dog park’s movement to fruition or if (as is typical) they simply rubber-stamp all her projects and turn tail and whimper away in the shadow of the Mayor’s position of power.

As for me, I say, ‘Good luck residents of Beechwood and Washburn.’

Steps to Trustworthiness

Step 1: Someone comes forward and says they want to run for elected office and so want your vote, which is a vote of confidence in that person to not only do a good job but to be trustworthy in it and look out for public interest over private interest. To use the power your vote of confidence gives them, not for personal gain or underhanded business but, to selflessly steer the ship of state to best serve the interests of the public at large.

Step 2: Because people don’t know the candidate or, because their trustworthiness hasn’t been proven in the field of public service, the candidate gives the public information about themselves to win over their trust and confidence to serve. Military service, other offices held, marital lengths are all ways to show the public one’s selfless dedication and commitment to something other than themselves. Although these things are not always  fool-proof.

Step 3: When things come up, called ‘conflicts of interest’ that show a benefit to the candidate/official or benefit to their friends or families or those with bias to that candidate/official (self-interest/self-gain), knowing the public’s trust of their behavior is paramount for good, solid, trustworthy governance, the candidate/official wisely, and respectfully, backs away or chooses a different course or removes themself from the thing or situation altogether in order to signal to the public that they are worthy of their sacred trust for their government’s highest gain.

Step 4: Seeing the candidate/official’s actions toward respecting the public trust over their own self-interests or benefits, the public are free to breathe easier knowing their government’s integrity (and therefore their lives) is on solid footing with the right, and trustworthy, candidate/official.

What undermines and breaks this process down

Step 1: Candidates offer little to no information to a public that doesn’t demand thorough information to make the best choice for their own governance.

Step 2: Low information voters rely on faces and names and yard signs, and not in-depth information, to decide for them. They believe that if a person is in office, they must be there for a reason and therefore, are a ‘good-enough’ candidate to do the job none of them want.

Step 3: Due to citizen’s low-information on elected officials and disinterest in their own governance, officials with little to no personal integrity don’t feel obliged to heed vital conflicts of interest for the public’s trust simply because the public isn’t paying attention anyway. Self-interested scalawags and authoritarians with little to no personal integrity or true care for the public, who didn’t have to prove trustworthiness in order to serve in the first place, now abound at City Hall because they can get away with whatever they want because the public isn’t paying attention.

Step 4: With the annoying nuisance of the public trust no longer in play, officials feel they can rule as they please with overbearing (and un-American) code enforcement, tromping on citizen’s Constitutional rights, profligate spending of taxpayer dollars, open bias and cavalier attitude towards conflicts of interest and the public trust, a damning careless attitude towards the separate branches of our government and an entitled and mocking disregard towards citizens they represent who come to them with peaceable redress of grievances.

How are YOUR elected officials doing by this yardstick?

A month or so before election day it was dropped on citizens that there would be a dog park installed at the corner of Washburn and Beechwood, caddy-corner from Lamby Lane park. The mayor and others presided over an announcement at the location, complete with Whitehall’s police K-9 unit. While the neighbors were alerted to the event itself, its my understanding that they weren’t polled on their feelings about having this park right by their homes. Some may have welcomed it but there were others who were livid with the city for not having informed/sought their opinions on the matter. We’re talking about quality of life and property values here.

The very evening of the dog park kickoff, Mayor Maggard spoke of it at the council meeting where Councilman Bob Bailey refuted the Mayor’s assertion that everyone had been apprised of it in the last two years.

The next week, in the council committee meeting, there was general discussion about the issue and Councilman Bailey made some excellent arguments.

Now, we are sent a postcard (paid for with citizen’s tax dollars) telling us there is a ‘planning kickoff’ meeting at City Hall on Dec. 5th from 6:30-7:30. It is clear that this is for planning and not for addressing why this wasn’t thoroughly vetted with the public before its location was written in stone. It seems they don’t care what the location’s impact is on the neighborhood or if the residents even want it but rather only that you hop aboard the mayor’s visions and merely help plan what they’ve placed already. (With the exception of Councilman Bailey who lives only a block from the park, no other official lives anywhere near the proposed site.) In other words, they don’t care what your feelings are on what plans they’re putting together, they just wanna get your input in what to do with it after its location is a done deal. Don’t allow their disrespect of you. Go this Wednesday and tell them how you feel (They HATE that. They only want feel-good sound bites and positive support for their projects in front of others. Looking good in the public eye is paramount to them).
It is audacious for them to put in a dog park in the middle of a residential neighborhood with dogs, big and small, running and barking all day long, 365 days a year. Where is their sense in this (again, 99.99% of them live no where near it)? There is actually code on the books where an animal may not make noise over 15 minutes. What if they’re different dogs making the noise for less than 15 minutes but those ‘less-than-15-minute’ stretches play out the whole day long? I am pro-dog park , for the record, but if its not done with proper and complete consideration, its disrespectful to the citizens who are paying for it, short-sighted and has the possibility of being a complete nightmare to the residents around it in a 5 block radius. Has any of this been considered by YOUR elected officials?

Before I show the video, you must understand the circumstances of what was going on.

Earlier in the day I’d placed two ‘No on Issue 37’ signs along Hamilton Road at the polling location at the Fairport Shopping Center at Fairway and Hamilton. It was completely legal to do so as has been done by myself and countless others over the years. I then voted and left for a couple hours. Upon my return the signs were gone. I was pissed. Taking signs away at anytime is reprehensible to say the least*. So then, I put two more out and decided to sit in the parking lot, closest to Hamilton Road, to watch for any more thieves. Maybe I could take their photo, tell them to leave the signs alone or capture them on video. I had some books with me and nowhere to go so, there I sat.

About an hour or so sitting there, a brownish Nissan comes up on me fast. I think it must be someone I know who knows my vehicle. As they pull within a foot of my vehicle, they roll down their window and its 2018 Charter Review Commission appointee Kim Bentley with a smartphone in her hand filming me. With raised voice she says (paraphrasing), “Oh look, its Gerald Dixon!” “What’re you doing here at the polls?!” “Why are you parked here?!”, questioning the actions and behavior of my non-elected, non-appointed public official’s self. Suggesting I was perhaps doing something wrong by sitting in the parking lot. As she was doing this I was trying to get my camera on and the video started but its operation takes focus in the best of times, and so I fumbled with it as she continued. After a moment, she pulled back and parked in front of my vehicle where I finally got my camera on and videoing. That is where my video starts. (You can ask her for the entire thing from her camera if you’d like)

The second time she came up on me was when I was filming myself to show how far away from the polls I actually was and my completely legal right to be where I was parked. As I’m filming this, she comes up again. This is in the video. (At its conclusion she says something the wind distorts but its “God, get a life dude!”, to which I laugh. A person coming up to film me sitting in a parking lot is a life then?)

The third time she came back she did so to rearrange her signs again and as she left she came within a foot of my vehicle again, in the lane closer to me and not in the right-erly part of the lane in which to exit in a northerly fashion.

Finally, after awhile, I saw Councilperson Lori Elmore politicking over by the polling entrance and so decided I’d better go over and speak up for the ‘No on 37’ side. I’m there a little while, all is normal, I’m holding a yellow ‘No on Issue 37’ sign. Everyone is pretty respectful of cars coming and going in the lot, getting out of their way, moving aside to let them in or out. At one point a vehicle pulls into the lot lane from the south, coming north. There are two spots available (to my right, to the vehicles left) both within the zone where one can rightfully politick. I reasonably assume the person driving is going to take the spot closest to their entrance to the lane (I’ve moved to the most northerly stripe of the more northern lane as I await them to take the more southerly spot) Suddenly they’re going a little faster than someone gently negotiating parking amidst several people standing politicking and it comes right at me, stopping only about a foot from me causing me to pull back and stabilize my footing. I look up and say, “You almost hit me!” and there, behind the driver’s wheel was Kim Bentley. She leaned out her window and said (paraphrasing) “Dude! You’re in my spot!”

Ward 4 Councilperson Lori Elmore to my left at the polling location

As I pulled back closer to the parked car directly behind my ass and said again to those around me, “She almost hit me!”, Councilperson Elmore, who was standing just to my left said, “You were in her spot!”. The whole thing was absolutely flabbergasting. She’s in a vehicle entering a space with several pedestrians standing/moving about and comes right at me stopping a mere foot from me and then has the audacity to chastise me because I was ‘in her spot’. (Does she mean the private spot she paid for with her name on it? Because I didn’t see that there and regardless, does that still give her the right to come up on me so quickly and so close?) Sadly, I don’t have a ‘smartphone’ and I don’t keep video rolling 24/7 but, as soon as she pulled in I got the video going and her remarks, post-car, continue the same train, including intimating that because I was ‘in her spot’ that that amounted to ‘intimidation!’ My flesh and blood body v her Nissan.

This is the endorsement ‘letter’ the Committee to Extend Progress put out that used Ms. Bentley’s Charter Review Commission appointment, in part, to sell the extension of term limits to the public.

* Earlier in the day, I’d done the same thing by the Methodist Church on Etna. I’d come back by and the sign I’d put out was gone. There was a volunteer from the Franklin County Democratic Party sitting where the sign had been, at the alleyway entrance to the church on Etna, and so I asked her if she’d seen what happened. She said a lady had come up and told her the sign was “illegal”. She went into the polling place and a short while later came out, got out of her car and told the volunteer that the person inside the polling place told her she could take it out. I myself went in and asked the precinct captain whether she had given any such ‘permission’ and she said she’d not. I called Code Enforcement officer Walt Sural and we spoke for a few minutes. He told me he was instructed to leave political signs alone and that given the tradition of putting them at polling locations on election day, putting them in the small grassy strip between road and sidewalk was fine. He also told me that I could file a report with the police regarding theft because they have monetary worth. For now, I wasn’t going to do that.

So, I put another sign in where the other had been taken. I sat awhile watching it in case the person came back. After awhile I’d left and drove around making sure other signs had not been taken. As I came back down Etna, I saw my sign was still there but a ‘Yes on Issue 37’ sign had appeared and there was a woman with short grayish hair walking west, away from the volunteer and the sign. I pulled up to the volunteer and asked her if that was the woman who’d taken the sign and she said yes. She implored me not to say anything as she didn’t want “trouble”. I drove around the block to see if I could see where she lived in case I wanted to call the police. I saw her in her driveway and continued on. Out of respect for the volunteer at the polls I didn’t do anything about the person and event but, I did notice she had several ‘Yes on Issue 37’ signs in her yard. Simply despicable behavior.

The 2019 budget proposal was distributed last week. In the next few weeks there will be discussion and perhaps some wrangling between the Maggard administration and the ‘citizen’s representatives’ on council (really…her ‘team’). The decision-making that will commence will effect our community. You have a right to know what is going on and to speak up if you feel it warranted, good or bad. Right now this budget proposal is being negotiated and so, while there is time, if you want to contact your representatives in government and let them know how you feel regarding anything in the budget, it is your right to do so. If you see something, say something. It’s your right and duty to do so. Remember who’s the boss in our government; you, the citizens.

At the end I’ll include contact information for all your representatives, as listed on the city’s website.

Per the City of Whitehall webpage, this is the contact info for each member of Council and President of Council:

Council President Jim Graham                                                                                                              james.graham@whitehall-oh.us                                                                                                          (614) 866-6688

at-Large Councilperson Bob Bailey                                                                                                        robert.bailey@whitehall-oh.us                                                                                                            (614) 237-7013

at-Large Councilperson Karen Conison                                                                                                karen.conison@whitehall-oh.us                                                                                                          (614) 236-9674

at-Large Councilperson Wes Kantor                                                                                                      wes.kantor@whitehall-oh.us                                                                                                                (614) 235-9139

Ward 1 Councilperson Chris Rodriguez                                                                                              chris.rodriguez@whitehall-oh.us                                                                                                        (614) 578-7784

Ward 2 Councilperson JoAnna Heck                                                                                                    Joanna.heck@whitehall-oh.us                                                                                                              (no phone # provided)

Ward 3 Councilperson Larry Morrison                                                                                                larry.morrison@whitehall-oh.us                                                                                                        (614) 286-8262

Ward 4 Councilperson Lori Elmore                                                                                                      lori.elmore@whitehall-oh.us                                                                                                                (no phone # provided)

Recently there have been a number of postcards going out to residents to alert them to  various events in the city, from ground-breakings to town hall meetings, park parties, etc. This is something fairly new that our government has initiated; not only alerts to notify citizens of the Chief of Police or other officials speaking but things more in line of self-publicity. Stuff that you don’t necessarily need to know about or see or attend. Given this, I was curious what this is costing the taxpayers who foot the bill for these postcards. City Hall is rarely forthcoming with information on how they’re spending your money. If you want to know that you can either attend meetings and call Councilpersons up or, you can make records requests, like I do. I thought these postcards sent out to citizens were curious and so sought the information. Here it is:

                                YMCA Groundbreaking

              Cost: $2155 (includes postage)*

The question is: why did they want/need citizens to come to this? It was merely a ceremonial event with media and a speech by the Mayor. Was this worth the money when curbs throughout Whitehall are crumbling?

                   Domestic Violence Awareness Month

                                    Town Hall Meeting

                           Cost: $2230.46*

From the Auditor’s communication:

“There is no budget for mailings, they are paid from various accounts. You’ll note that some mailings were much cheaper than the others, they are targeted to the area. All of the mailing were postcard size, some larger than others. From the Park Fund were San Jose Park party $312.95, Lamby Lane Park party $680. From Park Misc. John Bishop Park Party $615. From Public Relations Dog Park $403.58, Leaf Collection $2523.75. From Contingency YMCA $2,155, John Bishop Grand Opening $608, Town Hall $2,230.46, Park Summer Events $6200 (these were not mailed). My records do not say how many postcards were in each purchase. That averages out to $1,191.22 for each of the 8 mailings.

*City of Whitehall Auditor’s office

Had these laying around since before the election but was so busy and/or figuring out where to show these that I simply never did. People inquire about these three items all the time and so thought them of interest to citizens. First:

LOANS/BONDS

This is the sheet Auditor Miller supplied me with upon my records request. At the bottom it details what each line on the left entails. Remember: they usually frame these debts/loans/however you want to call them, as not increasing taxes, which calms the public’s aversion to higher taxes. However, while they don’t increase your taxes they do decrease from the amount of the taxes you’ve paid for other items that may be pressing. While this is fairly common in city management, how they spend the money and on what is still in your hands, like the $5,000,000 they spent on buying the Commons at Royal Landing apartments. They’ll spend plenty of money alerting you to groundbreakings and mayoral hullabaloos but little to none about plans to spend millions of dollars of your money. FYI

Remember: This shows you only until 2023. Various of these go several years.

TAX ABATEMENTS

Citizens ask how much the abatements are, who gets them, etc. Here is the list Auditor Miller provided me upon my request.

SALARIES

Finally, there are everyone’s salaries in the operation of Whitehall; government, service, etc. that you have a right to scrutinize. Take a keen look through. Some eye-opening stuff.

EXTEND DEVELOPMENT PROGRESS!

EXTEND PROGRESS IN SAFETY!

EXTEND PROGRESS IN PARKS!

We all know why this is foolish fear-mongering on a very base level. Every time someone new gets into office, they do their best to ‘progress’ the city and community they lead. To suggest that others won’t is to say that the current leader is the only one with the brains to ‘progress’ anything and that all others are weak and useless in comparison (including all those who served before who respected term limits as set forth by the citizens for their government officials). The argument is being made simply to stoke fear in citizens (for theirs and businesses benefit), afraid that the next one in will be a Troglodyte who eats with their feet. It’s ridiculous. Some excel, some fail but, no one is an utter horror. To suggest so is merely to promote self-interest and we already have plenty of that at City Hall.

I feel this is about vested interests promoting changing the safeguard of the people’s long-held law for one elected official who will continue with those vested interests.

In their literature, for the first several of the expensive mailings, the tag line was already properly placed (and no doubt already ordered up) : “Extend Term Limits”. So, once the opposition came out with their yard signs saying: “Keep Term Limits” their literature then changed to say: “Keep & Extend Term Limits”, which is the biggest bunch of horseshit I’ve read. ‘Keep them, but extend them!’ ‘Term limits’ are traditionally two. When people speak of ‘term limits’ you know they’re talking about two. While saying that extending terms to mean three but still having a cap on terms is ‘keeping’ term limits, where does it end; three, five, ten? What is the point of having term limits if their ‘limit’ keeps moving and therefore be as long as someone wants them to be? You could say this about 10 terms! ‘We’re keeping term limits but extending them to ten!’ It’s utterly ridiculous.

Two terms have long been the standard and norm in American history. Two terms has become, essentially, the default position and understanding of what ‘term limits’ mean, clear up to the POTUS. That is why the ‘No on Issue 37’ people’s signage is correct. Keeping what has been in place nearly 25 years IS the default position in Whitehall, that which is being ‘kept’. The ‘yes on Issue 37’ committee’s position is that they want them extended, not ‘ended’, therefore the correct verbiage for them is ‘Extend Term Limits’ (which was on their literature but not on the yard signs). To suggest that they’re ‘keeping’ them is disingenuous to their aim, which is actually to ‘change’ them by extending them to three (perhaps their truest slogan should’ve been ‘Change Term Limits!’). There was no doubt a ripple in the committee when the ‘Keep Term Limits’ signs came out and citizens freaked out that ‘term limits’ may be done away with, thus derailing their campaign and the probable reason for the change in their literature.

Here is a telling piece of campaign literature which was leaked to me in 2015.

To my knowledge it was never released. It was a piece extolling Kim Maggard’s ‘vision’ and her place as the head honcho of Whitehall. There are two things of interest in the piece (besides the misspelling). One is her referring to herself as the ‘CEO of a $33,000,000 corporation’ and the other is the telling way she suggests that to ‘Keep Whitehall Moving Forward’ is to re-elect her as our CEO…I mean, Mayor.

Firstly, as a voting human citizen of this little suburb of Columbus Ohio, I take issue with our elected Mayor boasting of herself as some titan of business, where in the real world she would’ve no doubt never reached such a position. In Whitehall, she practically ran unopposed in 2011 with the endorsement of then-Mayor John Wolfe (who now has a ‘Vote No Issue 37’ sign in his yard), got in and then had the power of incumbency in 2015 against her challenger, Leslie LaCorte (that which no one else took on). We the people see her as the community’s leader but she sees herself as the CEO of a multimillion dollar ‘corporation’. That is currently in evidence with her business-friendly ‘city motto’, “Opportunity is here” and the lavishness of the business donations to the campaign to extend her power…I mean, extend term limits to three.
The current campaign to extend term limits phrases their campaign with ‘extending’ everything from parks progress to safety to development. The argument’s reasoning being that without her, Kim Maggard, none of this will continue without her (and let’s be honest, this is totally about Kim Maggard. No one is fighting this hard with this much money for a Bob Bailey or Karen Conison or Larry Morrison third term…please!). You’ll note then the echo of this current campaign’s reasoning in this piece of literature from 3 years ago, “Keep Whitehall Moving Forward…Re Elect Kim Maggard on Nov. 3rd” Even then, it was a sales pitch aimed at suggesting brakes being applied or ‘movement in Whitehall’ as a car careening into a ditch were she to leave office. Again, as my late Father used to say, “Bullshit!”

Here is the Committee’s latest mailer, received just three days ago. It is posed as an endorsement ‘letter’:

Note the asterisk next to Barb Blake’s name. Here they have her listed as the Treasurer of the WCCA but she is also listed on Whitehall’s webpage as one of the members of the Planning Commission. Given this, I’ve duly noted her here as a political appointee too.

I have taken the liberty of adding the black circles next to the names of political appointees (that important political fact they seem to have omitted in the flier’s descriptions). This flier is rife with vested interests! From the City of Whitehall webpage:

You see here that, per the City of Whitehall’s webpage, that Mayor Maggard is responsible for most of the political appointments (with some by Council or Council through Board of Education) As such, when they lend their names to endorse the passage of Issue 37, can they be trusted to do so with ethical mindfulness for the public trust or, in doing so, because of the quid pro quo conflict of interest inherent in their relationships to City Hall, do this for other reasons? Passing a ballot issue that would benefit their backers? It is the stuff that erodes the integrity of, and the confidence in, our people’s government.

Conflicts of interest riddle our government and its processes with its cancer. As well, harm the very sanctity of the people’s community of Whitehall. It makes it rightfully seem that no one cares, no one seems to have ethical considerations in these matters. When officials respect the public trust entrusted them in government, they avoid these conflicts because of the suspicion they place on the ethicality of leaders motives, plain and simply. When conflicts of interest appear and are not properly heeded, they beg the citizen’s question: is this being done because of the reasons stated or is there some duplicitous underlying reason harmful to our government, community or ethical principles in general? Is it about power? Corruption? Because ignoring conflicts of interest is untrustworthy behavior, we simply can’t know the answers to these concerns. As such we just can’t, without reason to do so, give of them our sacred trust. They have not earned it.

None of the appointees listed cared about the conflicts of interest, which means, they don’t care about the citizens who entrusted THEIR government to those in charge, to operate it with scrupulous care and fairness for the people, not themselves. Conflicts of interest say, we’re doing this for ourselves, we don’t care how it looks or whether its right for citizens. The ignoring of conflicts, time after time, say that they simply don’t care and therefore everything I’ve said on this subject is accurate*.

This is precisely why term limits, as they currently exist, should be respected and kept and why they were put into place to begin with. It is clear that the current bunch care more about their own interests, above those of the city and the public trust, which leads to the unavoidable conclusion that they and their cronies have a stranglehold on power in our government**, that which they’ve amassed and clung to for themselves. It is not representative of citizen representatives and contrary to power being in the hands of the citizens rather than a small clique of disrespectful power-hungry entities. What else am I left to think by their own careless actions?

As well, two former councilpersons are on this list of endorsements, marked by the gold stars I placed next to their names. Tom Potter leads the ‘Yes on Issue 37’ campaign from whence the endorsement flier came. Mike Shannon was also the former city attorney and donated a good sum to the ‘Your Right to Vote’ committee set up to end term limits only five years ago, in 2013. Note Mayor Maggard’s interest in that campaign too.

Apparently, after the last campaign, people got smarter about how to handle this ‘problem’ for elected officials.

*This is the ‘Code of Ethics and Conduct For Elected and Appointed Officials in Belmont California. It is an excellent resource for how government can and should be run. When reading it, the glaringly awful behavior of Whitehall’s officials is made apparent. http://www.belmont.gov/home/showdocument?id=11083

**Mayor and council appoint people to boards and commissions. Council moves around from council to at Large and when seat is vacated, they themselves appoint the one who’ll fill the seat who then can run with the power of incumbency. Council appoints Charter Review who makes recommendation which benefits those in office with continued power which council then sends to the ballot. A committee is formed with an elected official as the Treasurer (collusion about the campaign with his ‘Team Mates’?). Whitehall political appointees endorse ballot issue which benefits elected leaders, giving them more power than what the citizens said they wanted three times now. In other words, the system YOU entrusted them with is being manipulated by them, not for your benefit but, the aggrandizement of their own power. They think you’re stupid enough to fall for it, I believe you’re not. That’s why I fight.