Whitehall Watchblog

Here is the how…

Kim Maggard gets elected mayor running with an endorsement by Mayor Wolfe and against a write-in candidate, easy-peasy.

Every manipulation possible to bring her to power is used, including a ‘candidates forum’ run by and manipulated by political cronies and people in government.

Maggard strains to fill every possible political position she can with those favorable to her/her administration/her ‘vision’.

She exerts her political force in little Ward council races to ensure those on council are not necessarily favorable to the citizens but rather to her/her administration/her ‘vision’.

This link fills things in nicely at this point:

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

She is the boss of the Community Affairs office which is the information arm of the city. All the mayor-centric posts benefit her/her administration/her ‘vision’.

So many of her political appointees are featured in campaign literature endorsing passage of Issue 37, that which benefits her/her administration/her ‘vision’.

She is shown going door to door handing out this literature which benefits her/her administration/her ‘vision’:

Here is video of her doing so:

She is ignoring the clear ethical conflict: passing out ‘Extend the Progress’ literature, thereby bringing full circle our government’s processes which were manipulated for her and her ‘team’s’ gains. It is not only the biggest ‘Fuck You!’ to the citizens and our government, but also its power and authority which she was entrusted with by the PEOPLE THEMSELVES. So much for checks and balances when all the decks and branches of our government are stacked BY HER to benefit her/her administration/her ‘vision’.

This is precisely why two-term limits are in place and have been nearly 24 years. The rest of what you’re being spoon-fed is merely a propaganda device to change our city’s laws simply in order to benefit HER/HER administration/HER ‘vision’. Plain and simply.

Yesterday I posted the pre-general financials of the ‘Committee to Extend Progress’ ( a misnomer if I ever saw one) submitted to the Franklin County Board of Elections. As you saw, the people wanting to give elected officials in Whitehall one more 4-year term raised an astounding $25,100. I’ve been looking at various financials from different campaigns for some time now and, to my knowledge, I’ve never seen an amount like this raised in a Whitehall campaign (and with no one person actually running either!). It’s extraordinariness raises a few alarms. First, a look at the numbers:

$16,000 was raised by businesses/corporations and a PAC or ‘Political Action Committee’ (what is this…Washington DC?!). Of those, there are four (to my immediate understanding) that operate businesses here in Whitehall. Two aren’t.

$9350 was donated by a total of four individuals, those whom I must assume are private citizens, only two of which gave a Whitehall address.

The only elected official to do so (At least so far. If others do, it’ll be on the post-general report where any ripples their financial participation may cause will not ill-effect the elections outcome) is Whitehall’s City Treasurer, Steve Quincel. The moral and ethical wrong of this is beyond shameful to our city’s processes and reasonable ethical principles. He himself has a vested interest in this Issue 37’s outcome. It is an exceedingly clear conflict of interest but, he treats it as if that’s none of his concern. He’s gonna do for himself and his ‘team’ at City Hall, regardless of the sacrosanct ‘public trust’, that which, in the ignoring of it for self-interest, says, ‘I don’t care’ to Whitehall citizens and the voters who elected him in. More on that later.

Over $11,500 to send out mailers. This is an expensive process, most candidates can’t afford (certainly in a small town like this). I dragged my butt all over this town to drop my literature door to door. Those that want this group to stay in power can afford it (which, to remind everyone, all officials can stay at City Hall, not just in the same office, for 4 years. That’s the ‘power’ smasher component of the two-term limit). Its really the wealthy trying to have at a middle to lower income community. As Mayor Maggard said just yesterday at the Norton Crossing ground breaking, the housing at Norton Crossing will be, “upscale residential units”.

With the release of this information it is clear who wants the Whitehall citizen’s traditional twenty-two year law of two-terms to be extended to three (Why not 4 terms? How about 7?! If our initial point was in limiting ‘terms’ to limit power, extending them then just seems in opposition to that intent): business interests, people who do business with Whitehall, wealthy benefactors and an elected official with a vested interest (and those in public office with yard signs promoting this vested interest…I’m talking about YOU Mayor Maggard and Councilman Wes Kantor).

Now, some enterprising people whose City Hall bias is clear, made recommendations to city council (whose bias is clear) who then passed them on to the ballot where huge singular donations have been made to make this two-term limit ‘irritation’ for city officials and vested interests go away. It fascinates me that those MOST interested in seeing the two-term limit disappear are always those within the system who have the money and/or power and not, by any reasonable view, the regular citizens themselves who make up the actual community of Whitehall.

Simply put, in my opinion, this isn’t about what’s best for this community of people, its what’s best for vested interest, power and people’s pocketbooks.

It is clear who wants them to stay for another term but, here’s the deal: A traditional two-term limit (good enough for Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama!) was brought forth by concerned Whitehall citizens because the Mayor and Council were abusing their power, plain and simply* (sound familiar?). Since then, it has been challenged twice and both times, the citizens kept the law in place. I hope those who this two-term limit actually benefits (the citizens), sees the folly of this money pile to our community and rejects ‘extensions’ of our long-held term limits, for their own sakes.

*as related to me by one of the original citizens who put the thing together

This was in response to yet another citizen on Facebook who suggested that I ‘hate’ Whitehall and that if I don’t like it here I should simply leave, those two awful and corrosive things I’ve heard before. Here is their claim:

“…your clearly biased blog does not constitute accurate or unbiased reporting. You don’t get to write a blog that poorly cites, if any, sources. You most certainly shouldn’t go screeching on all the Whitehall pages about how your fantastically delusional blog is fact. Dixon, if you hate Whitehall so much, leave. It’s okay to have differing opinions, but I have noticed that all your opinions share a certain theme, hating Whitehall. If you hate Whitehall, leave Mr. Dixon.”

I wanted to put my response on the blog because I keep answering this awfulness in various places. This condenses it in one place for all to see. This then was my response to that offal:

“My ‘bias’ has to do with those most associated with lack of ethics and morality in public office. You’ll note that my blog RARELY mentions City Attorney Bivens, Councilpersons Lori Elmore, Joanna Heck, among others. My ‘bias’ has to do with those doing the wrong and damage, in OUR names, to our government’s processes and the resultant damage to our community. Mayor Maggard is at the top of that list for a reason (See word cloud on my blog, below).

As for my ‘hating’ Whitehall, I will answer that charge once again:
a) characterizing my 10-year fight to right what is wrong in our government at City Hall as ‘hating’ Whitehall is waaaayy off the mark and is intended simply to marginalize my efforts in order to get people to hate me without deeper investigation on their own and cast me aside, that which only helps those and others with vested interests. See: ‘Strawman‘: “an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument”.
b) I don’t ‘hate’ my hometown, what I happen to hate is corruption among city officials which is wrong to the very soul of our community. Who else anywhere in this city has shown the devotion to my hometown in fighting tooth and nail to right the wrongs with the powerful goliath at City Hall at the cost of their good name and reputation being dragged through the mud and the time and energy and money I’ve spent over ten years fighting FOR my city, like I have?!! I haven’t seen YOU at meetings, I haven’t seen YOU on street corners protesting, I haven’t seen YOU writing letters to the editor, I haven’t seen YOU running for local office even once, let alone TWICE! What I would charge YOU with is not hate, which is an emotion one extends outward but, rather something more insidious and destructive: apathy and carelessness towards Whitehall, that which does NOTHING, says NOTHING, accomplishes NOTHING for the betterment or otherwise of our fair city. That atrocious carelessness that sits idly by while wrong is being done. That cares so little for Whitehall that they would sit by while wrong is done to that city. If there is wrong being done by citizens it is in truth the self-centered inactivity by people like yourself.
As well (as I have said TOO MANY TIMES BEFORE), the notion that an American should go ANYWHERE else when they find wrong and stand fast and commit to fighting against it is so VERY un-American, I’m always astounded when it leaves a fellow American’s lips.
By YOUR standard, Lincoln should have simply went to Europe and ignored the enslavement of human beings.
By YOUR standard, Suffragettes should have simply stayed home cooking dinner or went to more progressive countries instead of fighting to right the wrong of women not being allowed their right to vote.
By YOUR standard, Dr. Martin Luther King should have simply taken Coretta and left for France where racism wasn’t so much a problem and let Jim Crow and lynching stand as the accepted norm.
Such a directive is as awful and as un-American as it gets.”

The ‘pre-general’ financial disclosures for Issue 37 came out and here are the pro-‘extending term limits’ group’s donations and expenditures. I’ll comment on it at another time but for now, just LOOK AT IT (study it and Google things too!).
(The first four pages are all donations, the last are their expenditures)

We’ve all seen the postcards (left), mailers and yard signs in Whitehall put out by the ‘Committee to Extend Progress’ urging voters to ‘extend the progress’ in Whitehall.

Their point, as first made by the 2018 Charter review members, was that things are going good now and so it would be a shame to not extend that progress by giving those responsible for it one more term; thus then the reason for extending the traditional two term limit to an unprecedented three in Whitehall (why not make it 5! or 10! ‘Keep term limits to 10!’). As such then, that ‘progress’ is something which the current officeholders have enacted in Whitehall and as such, like the Charter Review people urged, should be afforded more years for even more progress. Given the public record I can’t help but see the inaccuracy of its logic. Here is why:

In 2006, twelve years ago, Mayor Lynn Ochsendorf signed legislation that entered into a contract with Pizzuti Solutions to develop a ‘Strategic Comprehensive Land Use Plan’. That which was executed and which is continuing under the current Maggard administration. So then, it was actually Mayor Ochsendorf, two mayors ago, who started this ‘progress’ and both Mayor Wolfe and Mayor Maggard have simply both ‘extended’ that progress which someone else started. Proving then that Mayor Maggard and her ‘team’ aren’t the end-all, be-all they’d like you to believe they are. In truth they’re merely the latest stewards, in a line of stewards going back 12 years, of the progress Mayor Ochsendorf’s plan initiated! Everything that has come of this plan has been worked on and developed over 12 years (including by newbies in their offices like Kim Maggard and Bob Bailey and Lori Elmore, etc., etc., etc. They were able, as newbies, to ‘extend the progress’ but now that they’re in, other newbies can’t do the same? And they need a ballot issue to extend it for them to prevent other newbies to do what they as newbies did? As my Father used to say, “Bullshit!”).
(Some of those who were there at the time, btw, are still in City Hall: Jim Graham, as well as the Strom Thurmond of Whitehall: Chris Rodriguez)

So, when they characterize themselves as ‘leaders’ and ‘visionaries’, I’m not buying it. If there are any visionaries in this story, they are ones at the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission or a community advancing firm like OHM who Whitehall wants to do business with. Otherwise, she and other elected leaders are merely the ‘progress extenders’ of someone else’s work. The elected leaders who came after other elected leaders and helped further someone else’s ‘progress’. That extension of progress this campaign suggests other, newer candidates, are either less likely to attain or are incapable of doing so like those currently serving. I say, ‘baloney’.

Notice the term SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) You’ll se an example of this in the last photo, below.

Here is the ‘SWOT’ as it pertains to Woodcliff

Too often I hear people say that my blog is merely an anti-Maggard screed. As such and, based on my own curiosity about the overarching themes of my blog, I decided to create a word cloud* based on the entirety of the blog’s writings. The above shot is that word cloud. I think it should stand as proof of the blog’s contents.
The most often used words are:

City- 563   Whitehall- 467   People- 448   Citizens- 401   Council- 392   Maggard- 308   Public- 250   Code-227

You’ll note that Kim Maggard isn’t even in the top 5 most used words. ‘People’ ‘public’ or ‘citizens’ was used a total of 1099 times and ‘City’ or ‘Whitehall’ was used 1030 times. While some of her supporters would like you to think the blog is all about her, its not. Its about Whitehall and its governance: what is wrong and how we can do better.

*I’m doing one for every post and will update them all with their own individual word clouds.

There is currently a war being ramped up behind the scenes in Whitehall, within City Hall and without. It is a war for power and ethics being waged on the battlefield of high expectations using words as artillery. The forces of that war are amassing as of this writing, with the Davids on one side and the Goliaths on the other. The ‘Goliaths’ in eager  anticipation of a commission’s recommendation that has the possibility of allowing them even more time in power: to keep it, amass more, etc. The ‘Davids’, in edge of your seat dread, hoping that all the conflicts present, now and in the future of such decisions, will not allow the disrespect of our laws, yet again, to further allow for the blackening of our government’s character.

As I have noted on this blog, there has been a vote to consider upping elected leaders term ‘limits’ from two to three. Arguments made have been that there has been ‘progress in the last 3-4 years’, newly felt pride in the city from this ‘progress’ and ‘immense turnaround’. They then also argue that ‘8 years is not enough’ and ‘can’t accomplish everything in two terms’. May I say that changing the Charter should never be done as a means of reward, as these statements make it sound.

As well, while this body talks so much about term limits, the elected officials who stand to gain if these considerations are turned into actual recommendations, are sitting right there watching and listening. So…if indeed these considerations do turn into recommendations made to Council, it will then be their job to decide if any recommendations then make it to the ballot. On council there are five members who could directly benefit from their vote to send it to the ballot, they are

at Large Councilpersons Bailey, Conison and Kantor

Ward Councilpersons Rodriguez and Morrison

Add to that all their buddies in the system that would benefit and you also have:

Mayor Kim Maggard, Council President Jim Graham and Auditor Dan Miller. That’s eight out of ten of the elected positions available in Whitehall government. Having watched them now for 9 years, this is how I believe it will all play out:

If the recommendation that all term ‘limits’ be raised from two to three (this is a ‘compromise’ between ending term limits or just prolonging them to ‘three’). The decision, of course, will be put in the hands of the council, some of whose hands are filthy with conflict of interest. They will pretend that they’ve been put into a difficult situation rife with conflicts of interest but, the only way to do it right is not to let it drop but to ‘let the citizens decide’ (After all, they’re just the go-between of the commission and the voters, they’re really innocents in the matter just tryin’ to do the right thing…yea, right. Convenient outcome benefitting themselves; the enterprising, morally repugnant power-grabbers some of them are. It’s really amazing how all these things come together which will ultimately benefit people who certainly don’t deserve this ‘benefit’). If the recommendation goes to council and the council takes it to the ballot, a committee will be formed and purse strings will burst open to help influence the election for their own benefit. Mark my words. It happened when they wanted Jacquelyn Thompson out and convinced you it was a ‘people’s revolt’ yet, it was nearly entirely financed by the government insiders themselves who wanted her out. Convenient. And don’t underestimate the power of influence, that of the ‘leaders’ and that of the money used to create signage and materials all designed to sell you on ‘three’ terms.

So, given this scenario, the council and the President of Council (1st in line to the mayor) and the Mayor herself, want to make certain the image given off of them is nothing but positive and glowing: Kudos and huzzahs from council to mayor after her ‘state of the City’ speech (really a political program, the production level heightened for maximum Maggard-shining) lots of buffing by government insiders and sycophants in general. This praise everyone is more than willing to vocalize and shout but who won’t truck criticism of elected leaders nor speak publicly about public legislation the mayor creates! They’re super vocal about their love of each other but silent towards a ‘David’ who dares to criticize them or ask questions regarding rights and the Constitution. That’s where I, and others, come in.

After they ignored my concerns (several times) over legislation, I felt it was time to take my rightful anger over their ignoring obligations to constituents and let the citizens know who these people are. It started with this meme I created…

One councilperson vented their feelings with me over it and while the others were silent, you could tell they had feelings about it that they wouldn’t express. Silent indeed.

This meme then, while true based on their public silence regarding questions and concerns over public legislation, makes them look (rightly) bad. That can’t be good for a possible ‘third term’ situation. I then released the same meme again but saying it with words I’d used in a video on this very topic…

Again, while true, this certainly does nothing to burnish the image of a third-term candidate. Their unwillingness to adhere to the obligations of their positions as elected public officials with the public (even when its one of their most dogged critics!) is a sign of their character alone. 

So, tensions are escalating. There is the possibility that they could all be eligible for more terms so they must look good in the public’s eye. That awful Gerald Dixon is a meany raking them across the coals with his memes and his constant vocalizing ( From Facebook: “My recommendation for you is a social group of some sort, involving an interest you share with other participants”), and of course, they can’t have that. Its spoiling their party. So, on Facebook, the mayor’s couple of most ardent supporters spent their time countering these memes and blog posts by degrading me, calling me ‘rude’, ‘obnoxious’, ‘toxic mouth’, ‘bully’, ‘asshole’ and instead of engaging in adult argument, called my writings nothing more than a  ‘manifesto’ full of ‘big fancy words’. All of this is, normally, fine by the way. This citizen criticizes elected officials, some feel that its tit for tat to criticize me. What bothers me most (and should you too) is that too many don’t make arguments or debate merits, but simply resort to name calling and belittling, no doubt to counter my efforts to expose them and to satisfy some revenge for my having went after those they celebrate and cheerlead. One even called the mayor, ‘my mayor’. (You mean ‘our’ Mayor, right? If I can’t criticize ‘your’ mayor, when is she ‘my’ mayor and I can criticize her?)

So, while this war for ‘their’ third term possibilities heats up, you’re gonna see a lot of back and forth. From my standpoint, I’ve been alerting you to their wrongful behavior now for 9 years. I’m not new to this, nor are their lack of ethics. However, the stakes have the ability to really ‘up’ now (we’re talking legacies here) and so the tolerance for my criticism and the blowback of it is really gonna intensify if all these considerations come to fruition this year, make no mistake. I may simply be, as one Facebook wag called me: a ‘looser’, but I’m just as pissed off with my elected officials as ever before because they think they can ignore and disrespect one citizen (as vocal as he is) because the rest of the citizens do little to nothing to call them out as well. Accountability folks. If you can’t spend just a little time rightfully holding your elected officials accountable, what exactly are you doing?

Unfortunately, our Republic wasn’t just founded on sunshine and cheer squads, there was some actual blood and criticism and stuff. Just because we won independence over 200 years ago, doesn’t mean there’s not still things that need our attention. Authoritarianism never sleeps folks, nor corrupt people. It is our job, as observant and caring citizens to always monitor that which has the ability to waylay our country/state/city. That is my sole intent these last 9 years. Accomplishments aren’t simply what ‘things’ you’ve done but are based on how you did them too. Its not enough that some at city hall ‘did things’ but that, when given the opportunity to do it right and well and with ethical principles, they chose to disrespect their positions, our government and the citizens themselves with immoral, underhanded, authoritarian corruption. Its as simple as that and when they are judged, the entirety of their performance must be considered, not just the gold brick they dropped at your doorstep. That is what my scrutiny has offered for 9 years; the entirety of their performances as elected leaders, not simply what the great and powerful Oz served up for your simple consumption.

The other day, I posted about the back and forth between myself and City Hall in reference to the term ‘free money’. There was something more about it that I wanted to showcase all on its own. The juvenility of two civic leaders with their behavior while public servants. Among so much wrong I’ve written on at City Hall, these two take the cake.

Mr. Graham got into the Council President seat twice by running unopposed. He wields the considerable power he has over the council proceedings by dint of his having had to do nothing to earn it. Voting for himself, he gets the job. He has helped obfuscate the truth when it doesn’t serve ‘the team’ at City Hall, example:

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

This from the blogpost about citizen concerns over the code enforcement department:
“(After I’d left the meeting) @ 19:29:35 Council President Jim Graham calls on the Infrastructure, Maintenance Services Chairperson Gregg but says, “Infrastructure, Maintenance, Service and Code Enforcement Chairperson Gregg.” There is then stifled laughter among several at the table.
@19:31:23 Councilperson Wes Kantor finishes speaking regarding youth soccer as part of the Parks and Recreation Committee.
Graham: “Is that like code enforcement?”
Kantor: “Yea, code enforcement.”
Maggard: (laughs)
(The meeting finishes out with the awful Gerald Dixon gone from their presence, only friendly faces now, with Council President Jim Graham making attempts at humor with mocking allusions to code enforcement in otherwise misplaced areas of the meeting, to stifled delight and laughter. The laughter of Kim Maggard is clearly audible)”
The inference being that if you bring serious concerns and allegations to your government representatives, they’ll just mock and laugh at you. Most particularly if you’ve criticized them.

Need I tell you about the post earlier this year when Mr. Graham loudly berated me in council committee chambers as the meeting finished:

THE UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT JIM GRAHAM AND CITY AUDITOR DAN MILLER. (VIDEO! rated PG-13 for salty language)

Here is all the video I got of him yelling at me. Unfortunately, because he’d unnerved me while I was disassembling the tripod and because my camera was new, I kept fumbling to get it to record while the Whitehall City Council President stood over me, yelling.

Here is President Graham caught on mic using mocking and belittling terms for citizens attending council meetings:

Graham to Kantor: “That’s Broom Hilda”

Kantor: “Huh?”

Graham: “That’s ‘Broom Hilda”, the one who had the water bill. I believe that’s her. Yea, the one on the right.”

Then there is Councilman and President pro tempore Bailey (meaning: acting President of Council when Mr. Graham is unable to act as President of Council): lacks professionalism (Calls me, a citizen and constituent he is paid to represent, a bully for exercising my very American right to defend my city against corruption in City Hall, suggested to me that a female council peer’s problems simply derived from a need to ‘get laid’…), is government’s biggest toady, (fighting those who oppose his ‘teams’ workings while simultaneously spreading lavish praise for that ‘team’) and mocks citizens.

This is me below, calling him out after he both claimed I’d bullied his family and suggested Charter Review Commission members (people who are creating suggestions that have the possibility of affecting our city), “shouldn’t be challenged”:

Of course, Councilman Bailey never answered to his affront to our Democracy in saying city officials “shouldn’t be challenged” but instead simply reiterated that I was a bully, like I’m a kid making fun of an overweight student online instead of the truth of the matter; a citizen calling out corruption and wrongdoing of his elected officials! Here he suggests something which is antithetical to our country’s tenets but because I exercise the sanctity of that country’s tenets, it is me who is in the wrong?!

So then, here we are the week after I brought up the misleading labeling of the term ‘free money’ after Mr. Woodruff’s presentation in Council chambers. They think I’m a joke. They think fiscal responsibility and citizen’s concern with his city government with a serious aspect regarding our tax dollars is mockable. Watch this video of Bailey and Graham in the Committee meeting. Mr. Woodruff is talking about grant money for bridges and Mayor Maggard chimes in saying, “We’ll take it”. During this exchange, Councilman Bailey is merely listening with his head down. After the Mayor speaks he looks at my camera and turns to Graham, getting his attention. You can slightly hear him say but also read his lips saying, ‘Free money’, which, upon Graham’s reply, amuses him to the point that he hides his laughter from the camera behind Ms. Elmore’s empty chair. (I hate to break this to him but, the camera still sees you doing this Mr. Bailey) Mr. Graham gets caught up in this hilarity and you see him move forward and to the left with eagerness to mock a citizen for his rightful and serious concerns, while Bailey continues to hide his laughter. Mr. Rodriguez is also amused after Mr. Graham says what he says. Everyone in the room knows what he’s doing but, of course, no one dares to speak out for the citizen’s sake against this outrage. He couches his question in “clarification” but its clear its just these two immature ‘boys’ in adult positions thinking its funny to mock citizens from their important positions. Here’s the video. Watch Bailey and Graham:

I don’t care if other citizen’s don’t like me for whatever reason, I don’t care if you think I have vindictive motives, I don’t care if you think I’m ‘long-winded’ or a ‘smarty-pants’, what is happening in YOUR NAME at YOUR City Hall is an outrage to professional and reasonable governance and our representative government. These two ‘boys’ shouldn’t be in office. At least Mr. Morrison and Ms. Conison and others have the professionalism and respect for the seat and their constituents to behave like the adults they are. Neither Mr. Bailey or Mr. Graham deserve the seats they hold but in a city with such lacks citizen participation and low voter turnout* and low voter information**, this is the sad result. Whether you like me sharing these things in public or not, whether you pay attention or not, this still goes on. Nevertheless, its still in your names as taxpayers and your names as the community of Whitehall. As for me, I’m appalled and angry. The fact that more aren’t is distressing and helps enable this kind of schoolyard behavior.

* In 2017, Chris Rodriguez got 8 1/2% of the registered vote in Ward 1, while I got 6 1/2%…only 15% of registered voters in Ward 1 came out to vote. Mr. Rodriguez, whose record I thoroughly explained, got yet another opportunity to do nothing because of 2% of a measly turnout. Whether I won or not, that’s simply awful given countries desperate for their own democracy and the thousands, if not millions who’ve died for this right.

WHITEHALL WARD 1 COUNCILMAN CHRIS RODRIGUEZ: A REVEALING INDICTMENT OF HIS OFFICIAL RECORD

THE ARGUMENT FOR COUNCILMAN RODRIGUEZ’ RESIGNATION

** I have endeavored to bring you information which exposes wrongdoing in our city’s government, that which seemingly hasn’t made a dent in their still being there. The cost of imparting this information has not been cheap, to take such a public drubbing in my own hometown simply because I wanted to do the right thing: by my country’s Constitution, ethical principles in government, my own town’s government and fellow Whitehallians they’re supposed to be representing. Despite this, I have continued, unbowed, because, plain and simply, its the truth and because I know I’m communicating with such a low-interest public, I have chosen the long haul, if that’s what it takes to get through to them. After all, isn’t your hometown worth your fight, your effort? Isn’t this country and its tenets worth it? I think they are and so have stuck my neck out against an entire City Hall to bring you this info. I do believe people are listening and people do understand their City Hall.

Here is a string of videos showing the movement of things as they are in Whitehall government when I, a citizen, critical of its leaders, draws attention to their words and behavior, as is my responsibility. I am often accused of simply making things up (despite the empirical evidence I’ve presented with my arguments) and that my presentations are simply ‘my opinion’. That is why I’m presenting these assembled videos. The first starts with Council President Jim Graham effusing about ‘free money’.

As you saw, it’s simply city officials using the term ‘free money’ to describe grants the city applies for and receives, those which are sometimes subsidized with our own money. Their use of the term gives off the impression that money can just miraculously appear out of the heavens. When I heard Mr. Graham say this it just seemed irresponsible on his part to exclaim this boon to Whitehall’s affairs in such a simplistic fashion.

Here too, we hear our Economic Development and Service Department Director, Zach Woodruff say it in the recent meeting to inform Etna/Seigman residents of an intended bike path using a 75/25 grant:

Again, ‘free money’. I honestly believe its a term which helps them sell citizens on a project that they want*. Who doesn’t love the term ‘free money’, right? Well, its not free and it usually comes at a price. Like the Etna/Seigman bike path plan. Mr. Woodruff says the price, per the engineers estimate, before getting into full engineering, is $2,999,999. The 75/25 grant would then pay 3/4ths of that, the other 1/4th, $749,999.75, would be the citizens to pay. That which would more than likely be paid in a loan or bond which then would come out of the yearly budget over a period of time, thus squeezing the taxpayers money which is there for the budget. (In answer to a citizen’s concerns that the project would increase taxes, Mr. Woodruff pointed out that the Etna/Seigman project would increase taxes by 0%, which sounds good to residents but the truth is that the loan it generates will actually decrease the budget’s spending ability at City Hall to pay for things like paving the entirety of a street, like Westphal; that aspect of the truth he nor anyone else at City Hall mentioned).

That’s where I came in. Firstly, I was tired of City Hall misrepresenting tax dollars with their characterization of ‘free money’, I thought it misrepresented the truth of the matter. Secondly, it doesn’t address the issue of fiscal irresponsibility on City Hall’s or any government’s part. I spoke off the cuff then, right after Mr. Woodruff’s presentation:

The following week, during the council’s committee meeting, Council President Graham thought mocking my legitimate concerns over government’s use of our tax dollars was acceptable. Here is that video:

What is sad is that, because of my criticism of them, I have seemingly lost my citizenship status as a Whitehall resident (forget my native status). They don’t take me seriously, my valid points and arguments, whether its on concerns for Constitutional issues or government’s spendthrift ways because I have, rightly in my estimation, gone after them for the wrong and foolish things they’ve done, as is my very American right as a citizen (and as they deserve). This is shown in Council President Jim Graham’s mocking my concerns over their use of the term ‘free money’, which was awkward, evidenced by Zach Woodruff saying, “Uh, not gonna do that”. People in that room knew it was mocking me, me who was sitting behind the camera. Council President Graham’s unprofessional tack towards a citizen is very telling. That is why I decided to clarify my point in a poll public last evening. The video is followed by the entirety of what I said, in case any of it is garbled in the video:

“Free money. The first time I noticed this term, it was said by Council President Graham in reference to grant money we receive as I’ve also heard it since. Everyone here seems so excited by all this ‘free money’ (your term, not mine) and yet, simple economics show us the inherent wrong and trouble of this ‘free money’. That is why I spoke up at the poll public two weeks ago. I was tired of this misnomer being bandied about by my government without a more thorough understanding of its impact. So then, let me be clear on the ramifications of this free money you get to prop up our city’s limited resources to support itself.
As Auditor Miller pointed out, it is, to some extent, the money we paid out in State and Federal taxes, and that is true. However, what is not said is this: Whitehall is a poorer than average town which seemingly can’t afford to take care of its responsibilites on its own. Of course we can afford to buy properties with citizen’s money at the cost of around $20,000,000 but we can’t afford to, in a timely fashion, repair our own infrastructure? On one hand we give tax abatements to businesses like beggars hoping someone will take advantage of our ‘opportunities’, losing money which could pay for many things, while we make up for that lost money by taking advantage of grant money. Businesses win, we all lose per the national debt. In truth, we’re pretending to be something we’re not, and for whom? Because we’re embarrassed to call ourselves Whitehallians of the Whitehall that actually exists and not the one we pretend to be with the makeup and fashionable attire the grants afford us? We’re living beyond our means, City Hall is not fiscally responsible, we can’t afford that which we have or do. We can’t even afford to maintain our own city and in doing so, not only have we put a great deal on bonds which take away from the money we have to spend for our city in the yearly budget in the future, we are also helping to balloon the national debt, but yet, our shortsightedness says, that’s not our problem, not here, not now. However, that debt, which is over 21 TRILLION dollars** is gonna come due and whether its our community saying, ‘If we don’t take that grant money, someone else will’, then its another community saying the same thing and so, who is finally going to show sense and restraint for the common good? When will reason finally prevail in this country, in this community, saying, enough is enough? The egos to sell an inorganic expensive ‘vision’ for a Whitehall you want it to be are simply selling future generations down the river where they will undoubtedly deal with tough austerity measures, all because no one in the present could face the reality of their situations, instead pretending to be something they’re not. The shine then on the gleaming city of ‘Team Maggard’ will be cold comfort to your grandchildren living with the real impacts of that short-sighted, self-centered vision. Mark my words.”

Then came Jim Graham’s rebuttal, one that, as usual, missed the point of my argument:

There is certainly plenty to rebut in Jim Graham’s defense of the city using grant money but I will save that for another post, lest someone think me ‘long-winded’. Suffice it to say, this represents our government. They’ll like you and respond to you when its something simple as someone’s unkempt property or a sign missing or needed, sort of service-oriented needs or complaints but, if you challenge them on policy or administration or the movement of their designs for Whitehall, then they have little for you. They are in charge, how dare you challenge them. Thus then, the always sychophantic Councilman Bailey, regardless of the merit of Mr. Graham’s opinions, offered this:

Notice, they always have each others backs but not the citizens.

Mr. Graham thought of it as ‘free money’ whereas Mr. Woodruff, in facing the sometimes unyielding public, I believe, used it at that moment to sell the bike path grant, after all, everybody loves ‘free money’. Regardless, truth should be where we live when it comes to the reality of our taxpayer-funded government. We can handle the truth. Just because the administration wants something doesn’t mean the public does and if that’s not respected, via giving them the whole truth and accepting and respecting their wishes, then the citizens should revolt against that kind of disrespect. The fact is that Mr. Graham couldn’t professionally deal with a citizen challenging him on their behavior. That is to Mr. Graham’s discredit. Until he and they all do better in these jobs the citizens entrust them with, they will and should hear from not just me but, other mindful citizens as well.

*I honestly believe that Mayor Maggard would love to bypass all this irritating, obstructing governmental/checking-in-with-citizens business and just plow forward with her ‘vision’ using our money. She filled City Hall with her devoted team players, I’m sure it frustrates the hell out of her that she can’t bend all the citizen’s will to be on board ‘Team Maggard’ too.

**http://www.usdebtclock.org/