This video says it all and is more on point now than ever. It is as clear as a bell and serves to underscore the immorality our elected representative body shows when they refuse to answer a citizens legitimate concerns over legislation which will effect the entire community. Their moral rot is apparent despite any affectations they may put on that try to convince you otherwise. They sold themselves to the citizenry as people who wanted to serve the community but their silence really serves as an indictment of their truer selves, to serve themselves and the Dear Leader. I am sickened by their betrayal of the citizens of Whitehall and the seats they occupy.

Mayor Maggard and her mute drones on council are doing whatever they please because citizens aren’t paying attention and/or don’t care.

Below are revisions to Chapter 745 of the codified ordinances of the City of Whitehall, Ordinance 024-2018. This is Mayor Maggard’s doing, that which I claim are based on nothing more than Facebook hysteria regarding people coming to citizen’s doors. It is officious and an authoritarian overreach I believe was designed to not only pull more money out of people’s wallets but tighten Mayor Maggard’s fear-based authoritarian grip on the tapestry of our society’s liberty and society. It is an offense to both.

When the mayor introduced this at a Council Committee meeting, while there were a couple questions, no one at the table used critical thinking to challenge what can and would be so authoritarian of a law on our community. As a result of their lacks critical thinking exhibited, I myself introduced concerns and questions I had and that anyone might who were to actually play devil’s advocate when the mayor brings forth community-changing legislation. My comments at the following meeting two weeks ago follow the ordinance revisions below. After that, there is more narrative.

Here then are the comments I made at the following Council meeting (two weeks ago):

‘Last week the mayor brought forth a draft piece of legislation amending a codified ordinance regarding Vendors and solicitors. Sitting in the back, I was alarmed at a lack of interest paid it by any of you. Outside of a couple questions by Councilman Bailey, there really wasn’t anyone who used critical thinking skills to play Devil’s Advocate, for the benefit of the people they’re supposed to be representing. As a citizen, I find it frustrating.
So then, let me use this opportunity to play the critical role of devils advocate for you.
Unless there are statistics showing abduction, rape, murder or home invasion against Whitehall citizens by vendors and solicitors I would see no justification for changes to the law. Inconvenience or irritation of personal intrusion is not justification to add more laws, fingerprinting and background checks of people selling products, more paperwork, more government bureaucracy that will complicate things and further strangulate an already overburdened liberty. Bigger government, more employees. More employees, more tax dollars needed, more tax dollars needed, less money in the citizens pockets and for who and for what? I have NEVER heard of this being a problem before in all the years I have lived here. Why now? What has become so alarming now? Its more diminishing and penning in of our society, as well as more illogical, fear-based laws.
As well, you talk about it affecting kids selling candy and cookies and while they also fit the exact definition of a peddler as defined in the legislation, you express a hopeful belief that no one would call the police if kids haven’t the defined requirements to peddle. I’m sorry but this is allowing different treatment for one person or group than another which goes against the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. A part of a larger document you swore an oath to support.
There is also a portion which prohibits peddling and soliciting on Sundays and legal holidays, which sounds exactly like the old blue laws based on religion. Our shared society is made up of varying people, as the government which represents all of them, no one day is different than another in regard to selling citizens something. I remind you of the 1st amendment in regard to making any law respecting an establishment of religion.
So too, citizens calling the police department because someone didn’t display a lanyard or disrespected their ‘no-knock’ wishes? A department, I remind you, which is overburdened and already can’t find the time to catch the many speeders who menace our streets, diminishing our quality of life. The mayor and others poo-pooed truck legislation a few years back because the fear was in tying up officers time regarding truck weights but, they have all the time in the world to respond to unregistered salespeople?’

That was where I ended my comments for the prescribed time allotted. As a result, I didn’t finish what I had to say. For this blog though, I include them for your interest:

‘It seems to me then that with this legislation requested and prepared by Mayor Maggard that she seems less interested in personal liberty and supporting our Constitution and more interested in imposing fear-based authoritarianism on our home.
Until you (Council) wrench yourselves from the gravitational pull of Mayor Maggard’s power and campaign finance beneficence you are useless to your constituents, those who elected you and whom you owe the lion’s share of your attention and whatever critical thinking skills you may possess to serve them with. Until then, your unchallenging passivity and kneeling genuflection to a separate branch of government is insulting to the citizens and disgusting to our Republic.’

At the end of the meeting all I heard back from them in reply was one or two, ‘thanks for commenting’ but no one had the courage to reply. It’s really quite disgusting. They have all the time in the world to ask questions and formulate thoughts and opinions on matters that effect the public, but they haven’t anything to say in response to a citizen’s concerns, and in particular, Constitutional concerns?!

As a result of their silence, I then wrote them all a letter via the Council office and Clerk Mary Freimark. I was told that all the council members received it last week but, I still never heard back from any of them. The body of the letter is below:

To: Councilpersons Bailey, Heck, Morrison, Elmore, Conison, Kantor and Rodriguez
Re: Amendments to Chapter 745 of the codified ordinances of the City of Whitehall

March 8, 2018
Dear Representatives,
At this weeks council meeting I spoke about the things I saw as flawed or concerning in regard to Mayor Maggard’s revisions to Chapter 745 of the codified ordinances. I also spoke of my concern with all of you that there wasn’t enough of or a proper stance of, devil’s advocate in response from you regarding the alarming authoritarianism of this ordinance, which included my argument that it is violating our Constitution, specifically the 1st and 14th Amendments.
Unfortunately, but not unexpected, if I got any response from you at all, it was tepid and non-committal with ‘thanks’ for commenting. However, what I spoke of and what my concerns were, are of the highest import and as such beg much more in response from you, that which you owe not only citizens like me whom you represent but also our Constitution, which you swore to support.
As such then, I respectfully request a response from you. I have argued, specifically, how this legislation violates our Constitution, now it is your turn to respond. If you agree with me, I expect a response saying so. If you do not, I expect your learned response arguing how it is that I’m wrong. Silence will not do. The people of Whitehall deserve the fullest measure of your participation as their representatives that you have a responsibility to give. So too, the people deserve to actually hear your takes on this legislation’s heavy-handed officiousness (background checks, fingerprinting, heavy fees, etc.). Before you pass legislation like this with such liberty-strangling directives, I believe I and other citizens deserve to hear your justification for this ordinance’s amending. Perhaps citizens, like me, are paying attention, perhaps not but, the right to hear explanations from their representatives is not beholding to the amount of people inquiring but rather, that they do so in the first place. As such then, I eagerly await each of your replies.

Thank-you,
Gerald Dixon

So then, at tonight’s meeting (3/20) I spoke to them about this concern that I’d received no reply and that it was unacceptable for them to remain silent on legislation and that they owe citizens (not only me) an explanation and that I expected it of them in their opportunity to address the public during ‘Poll Council’. Surely they have assembled feelings and opinions on the matter by now. (This was also the meeting where several people from Woodcliff came in and spoke). At meetings end they all expressed how they ‘couldn’t’ discuss the ‘Woodcliff matter’ because it was in ‘litigation’ (this is ALWAYS their excuse. The citizen’s representative’s tongues and hands are eternally tied by litigation). They addressed that but said nothing on the matter of the revisions to Chapter 745. Nothing. (and there was no litigation with it which would compel their silence) Their silence is complicit of the wrong the Maggard administration is perpetrating on our community and it was with intent that our legislators withheld their thoughts and opinions from me/us.   When the meeting was over I went up to the dais and told them how shameful they all are for not speaking on something they have an obligation to the citizens to.

For fairness’ sake, Councilperson Joanna Heck came up to me and told me that she was going to speak with me the week prior but that she didn’t because I’d cut out early due to dull end-of-meeting discussion about council rules and procedures. She then made the offer to have ‘coffee and a conversation’ but I declined, here’s why: Whether with intent or not, she offered what an otherwise silent council most often offers the public in regard to knowledge; the private conversation in the hallway, in the parking lot afterwards. I told her that I was inquiring for the knowledge of the public, not simply for myself and so, a private conversation would end up being, a) hearsay if they wish to refute anything and b) not knowledge rightly extended to ALL the public this legislation will effect. She essentially refused any public form of explanation regarding Ord. 24-2018 and so that’s where we ended it.

During our talk, Councilman Bailey came up and interjected himself into our conversation, seemingly only to lambast me for this blog and question the ‘facts’ I put into it and I could see it was veering towards shouty anger. I told him he is a mocking authoritarian (which is how I feel) and moved back to my conversation with Councilperson Heck that he interrupted. While I appreciate Ms. Heck’s attempts to answer my letter, this whole ‘private conversation’ business ultimately benefits only them and I’m not gonna have it. This fight I engage in is done for the citizens of Whitehall who deserve better representation than team-playing, rubber-stamping mutes. For the sake of decency, for the sake of ethics and principles and open government and true representation, I demand the answers that we are entitled to. For those reasons, nothing else will do.

So…I am sickened by all of them, my own Ward Councilperson, Chris Rodriguez, the at-larges: Conison, Bailey and Kantor and even the other Wards who also owe the citizens explanations of laws they pass in their names; Elmore, Heck and Morrison. If wrong is being done to our society; democracy, it’s processes, it is their names their silent consent will tattoo upon the record. As a Whitehallian and an American, I say it is unacceptable and deplorable from our elected representatives.

As a postscript: Because the Woodcliff situation was in the spotlight on 10tv News earlier this evening, there was a news camera at the meeting tonight. (News at 11!!) As a result, some on the dais put on their friendlier public faces. Sadly for them, every person who spoke was not one of their cheerleaders. I believe they hoped the damage in front of the camera would be minimal (because it contradicts the peppermint façade they want the public to believe) but, it wasn’t.

   First rule of Charter Review should be:

The first meeting of the Whitehall Charter Review Commission gathered the previous Monday evening, the 26th of February. Along with the members sat Council President Jim Graham to help them settle into their roles and answer questions they may have. So too the Clerk of Council was on hand to record the proceedings. In the audience were myself, my pen and legal pad, and Councilman Larry Morrison with a copy of the charter taking notes.

My first impression was one of awe as the members were sworn in. Regular citizens doing their civic duty (with no pay), helping to advance our democratic Republic. A lot of people fought and died for this form of government to take place and here it was, in the smallest example of it, playing out before me. Really nice to see.

As a preface to my writing on the meeting itself, I have this to say: I don’t feel right about speaking about specific members. They are currently undertaking the discussing, disseminating and debating of what to do about various things in the city charter. I feel that by tying specific things said to specific people, it would only serve to put a chilling effect on this body’s important work. I don’t want any one person to feel shy in speaking freely because they’re afraid how their individual comments will be received by the public (Although it is an open meeting and part of the public record. That record any citizen may request a written or audio transcript of). So, what you’ll read here are just the notes of what was said but not pertaining to any specific member.                                    As well, I understand, for the most part, how these are a group of citizens tasked with undertaking a civic responsibility that, mostly, haven’t done this sort of thing before. While I may have opinions, criticism and concerns regarding their decisions and opinions, it is my right to those things and all done in the spirit of argument, that which is utilized for best possible outcomes. My understanding and empathy for them and the job they have to do is utter and complete.

♦ So then, after swearing in the Chairman, co-Chair and Secretary, they started to discuss things. A couple of the members, in regard to visitors speaking to the commission, expressed how they didn’t want this process to ‘keep them here all night’. The last time I heard this lament was from detractors of former councilperson Jacquelyn Thompson asking questions and making arguments for and against legislation, as if she didn’t have a right to ask things and actually argue points in regard to legislation, that which will effect residents and their lives. I’m sorry, my feeling is; if doing this job and offering a full measure of your commitment to this civic duty is a burden then you shouldn’t have agreed to it in the first place. It shows a lack of respect and commitment towards the process no one forced anyone to undertake. If citizens and others need to speak, you have a full obligation to listen to what they have to say. Lord knows so few participate, I don’t think spectators speaking is what is gonna keep them there interminably. As well, if other members need to make their cases for or against an argument, they have that full right to be heard and not worry if their meritorious discussion is keeping everyone there ‘all night’.

♦ Another question asked was whether or not city officials have any ‘roadblocks’ regarding the charter. (Utter freedom for elected officials?!) This concerned me because the charter is for the people, not the city officials. The question should be whether it makes it harder for officials to do harm to citizens. The ‘roadblocks’ that exist now are called due process and the U.S. Constitution. The charter isn’t there to make things easier for officials, it is there to have rules and regulations for the interests of the citizens.

♦ One member said it would be good to have the mayor in attendance. (I’ll just leave that one alone, for now)

♦ One of the members enthused about term limits, a city manager position (!!) and the ‘progress’ made in the last 3-4 years. I’m sorry but, as an independent, autonomous body tasked with making changes to our city’s charter, it does not bode well to hear one of them talk glowingly about any leaders ‘job’. It shows a bias, that which suggests elected leaders being thrown a bone because they’ve done pleasing things. That possible bias which threatens to taint the decision making process, calling into question then the validity of its being. This begs the question then: are they making their decisions for the people or are they making it for government insiders? That whiff of conflict of interest is concerning.

♦ So, Sections 1 and 2 they found nothing to change. Section 3: Elections/Qualifications, there it all began; what I worried about.  It didn’t take long to hear the phrase, ‘term limits’ brought up. Some arguments made were that perhaps the ballot language the last time it appeared was faulty and so they asked who was responsible for the language. (Per the city charter, Section 17, its the City Attorney who would’ve written the ballot language. The last time it was put on the ballot it was Mike Shannon. Questioning the verbiage of a guy like Mike Shannon is silly, it impugns his ethic and suggests he either manipulated ballot language in a way which kept term limits in place or did so out of incompetence, neither of which is believable in the slightest. If they’re simply trying to unearth any excuse to question the validity of the term limits outcome, this avenue is certainly not it).                                                                                                                                                       This ‘concern’ then that the language used was faulty, I believe, is really moot and seemingly grasping at straws (why is it important they find some reason, any reason really, to point the finger at it to say, ‘there, that’s the reason its success was flawed and we have to put it on the ballot again!’ rather than a mere acceptance that it passed because that’s what the citizens wanted? How about that for a reason?! Why are they trying to find any reason to recommend it being put back on the ballot?)

Other arguments made were: why should we have term limits, perhaps making it three terms instead of only two would be a remedy (a remedy for who and for what?!) Why do any of them have issues with term limits in the first place and why? It has been brought forth three times to the ballot, once to approve it, two other times it was reaffirmed by the voting public. What about it, after three times, does it need to be revisited, particularly by every Charter Review committee?! It’s making me feel that my concerns about the appointing process have some validity.

After a bit of back and forth, it was decided that instead of ending term limits, they should just increase terms to three. Now…let me see, I wonder who is slated to be termed out with two terms coming up….hmmm….oh…that’s right…Mayor Maggard?! Bob Bailey?! Karen Conison?! Jim Graham?! For the love of God! Given the surreptitious way in which this group was assembled by Council President Jim Graham/one of them tied to Jim Graham with campaign finance/ and several being Facebook friends with Mayor Maggard and council members, (these interconnections which show conflicts of interest) is it any wonder there is room for alarm? Again, a possible bias which raises concerns of political manipulation. That sort of bias which might be good for public officials interests but not necessarily that of the citizens themselves or beleaguered ethics in public office. Again, I am reminded of this essential blogpost:

https://votedixon.com/2015/07/04/why-ethics-in-public-office-matter/                                                                                                                                                                                                         As a sidenote: It’s interesting, I, who ran for office twice within the last two years, took no money from any government insiders, have no sort of connections to government insiders (clearly free of conflicts of interest) and match the qualifications to sit on this commission, was not picked for this process and yet, I am inordinately capable in the execution of the task. (Even one of the members told me how he/she felt I should be at that table!) Coincidence? I think not. Why do you suppose that is? Is it simply due to bitterness on the part of elected leaders who feel burned by how I’ve written about the litany of their immoral service over the years, or, was I not going to be amenable to the elected officials and/or malleable enough to their influence? Were they worried I was gonna (justifiably) assail every assailable argument brought forth that they liked/wanted? Absolutely. I believe its the latter argument and that is why I have such great concern. As I stated in the last post on the Charter Review, I have grave concerns of the influence elected officials have on this decision-making body. Coupled with the conflicts of interest ignored, elected officials who are being termed out, (some of whom have been arguing for and financing the end of term limits before) it leads to cynicism of leaders and purpose and makes worrisome this stew of situations and associations, that worry which I find meritorious. The conflicts of interest alone, which are a tiresome through line for years in Whitehall City Hall, are themselves, too evident to ignore but, they were anyway. (Was this sloppy work or with intent?)

As far as their arguments go: I kept hearing how it keeps people from serving in a city without a lot of qualified applicants, how the law is ignored anyway because the council just hops from seat to seat…

As an example, here is an argument against term limits Council President Jim Graham himself made to the Whitehall News in 2013, as quoted by the website Ohio Watchdog; “The size of the pool of voters could limit the amount of people who could run for office,” Graham added. “So in a small community there might not be enough qualified candidates or enough people who feel they should step up to run.”

He also took exception to the four-year hiatus before seeking the same office again.
“If you could run for another seat, then what’s the purpose?” Graham asked.
“If you want to limit someone from running for office, OK. But this doesn’t prevent someone from running from office to office. If the intent is to limit someone holding public office, then why should that person then be allowed to run for a different public office?” (Excellent point Mr. Graham)
“It doesn’t make sense,” he said. “Either you want term limits or you don’t want term limits. You can serve then you have to sit out before you run again for anything. You can’t have both.” (See my solution below…)

So, essentially, Jim Graham said that there aren’t enough citizens qualified to run for office here in Whitehall (the inference being, a) not enough people smart enough and b) you’ve got ‘qualified’ ones now, why get rid of them?) As well, that term limits don’t stop people from jumping from one seat to another. Perhaps so but, here are the holes in his arguments:

Firstly: He was quoted as saying this in 2013, since then there have been a slew of candidates who’ve run for the various seats, including Michael Bivens for city attorney, opposition in the Mayoral election, more candidates than seats available for at-Large in 2015 and every single Ward in 2017 having two or more candidates running. The fact is, Whitehall will live or die by its ‘talent pool’, if one feels the ‘talent pool’ is lacking then what is being done to uplift that pool? As well, this notion that now when you’re in office everyone else is ‘lesser’ talent is not only shown to be erroneous but rooted only in ego-driven worry and foolishness.

Secondly: The notion that its the law that’s flawed and not the elected officials hopping from seat to seat is ridiculous. The law was put into place, that which must be respected and adhered to, not only the letter of the law but also, importantly, its spirit. They have had numerous opportunities to change a law they feel wrong and each time the voters have kept it in place, therefore, the elected officials who disrespect the spirit of the law voters approved are the problem, not the law itself. This is obviously a loophole power-hungry fevered-egos take advantage of for their own self-interest. It is an utter smack in the face to voters, some of whom (ironically) vote these people back in office despite the law or its spirit being in place. It’s madness. I remind you then of this quote;                                                                      From a Dispatch article in 2013: “This is the third time it’s gone down. The people want them kept in place, and we have to respect that,” said Councilman Chris Rodriguez, who was re-elected to his fourth term. “We had three races go unopposed, mine being one of them.” (Mr. Rodriguez was just reelected to serve on Council, his 17th through 20th years there, with the help of an endorsement from the term-limits opposing Mayor Maggard)

So, no one else is good enough to run for office, and the law should be thrown out because loopholes allow officials to disrespect the spirit of the law mandated by citizens and jump from seat to seat? Got it.

Here’s what is possible then in a voter-respectful fashion: because it is more than apparent that citizens want term limits, they should be kept. Instead of bemoaning these pesky loopholes officials keep bounding through, close them up!! Close up the loopholes!!!  (Funny that not ANY of the brain trust available at city hall all these years has seen or done anything about this or made the connection as it being the true source of the problem. Their only argument/solution, coincidentally, is the one which most benefits themselves? I mentioned this loophole years ago but, as one might expect down at City Hall, it’s never really been well received.)                                                                            As well, in light of officials concerns that the pool of qualified candidates is so lacking, what has the city itself done all these years to educate and promote and encourage citizens to not only vote but be a participant in the civic duty of their government’s processes? Instead of concentrating on why term limits are bad and why (self-centeredly) they should be eradicated, get people involved (like City Attorney Michael Bivens with Moot Court) to secure the health and vitality of our processes for the next generation leading our city. (So too, stop being so damned underhanded and corrupt for God’s sake!) But, of course, in what I have seen from too many elected officials here in Whitehall, these alternate courses don’t behoove their self-interests so, let’s just have all these people, too many of whom have questionable ethics and moral principles serving in office, more and more and more goddamned time. Its really quite shameful and is being abetted not only by those selected to be on the Charter Review commission (time and again) but also by citizens themselves who turn a blind or self-interested eye to all the wrong being done, that which I’ve pursued and exhaustively detailed in various forms, for their benefit, over the last 9 years.

♦ Lastly, outside of concern shown that council members should get a ‘cost of living’ increase, there really wasn’t anything else and so they voted nothing else for consideration for the rest of the meeting. (sidenote: salaries for council amount to a little over $100 per meeting, it is not intended as a means to make a living, therefore, ‘cost of living’ increases are moot. If anyone is relying on being a councilperson to make a living, they’ve got bigger problems than their council salary)

Next meeting:

Monday March 12th 6:30 pm

Council Committee room (behind Council Chambers)

Whitehall City Hall

Alright…FINE!

As is all of our right under the Ohio Sunshine laws, I made a request through the City Attorney’s office for the record of receipts for outside legal services in regard to what the city of Whitehall spent in pursuit of the Woodcliff Condominiums. Here then is the record sent back to me by City Attorney Bivens from the Auditor’s office:

Forgive me a little self-indulgent celebratory laughter…ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Oh, man. I had to laugh at this one because it totally backs up what I’ve been writing on this topic now for several years. Whitehall’s intention is to buy the Woodcliff Condominiums. To all those who sit there and accuse me of writing bullshit, I say; justify/explain this away!

https://votedixon.com/2015/10/29/woodcliff-v-whitehall-what-lies-beneath/

https://votedixon.com/2015/10/30/woodcliff-v-whitehall-part-two-the-pirates-of-whitehall/

https://votedixon.com/2015/10/30/woodcliff-v-whitehall-part-three-the-blight-of-mayor-maggard/

https://votedixon.com/2016/01/21/woodcliff-v-whitehall-what-lies-beneath-an-update/

https://votedixon.com/2018/03/01/woodcliff-v-whitehall-part-four/

The legislation below was introduced ‘last minute’ at last night’s council meeting.

Notice the language used referring to the Ohio Revised code. They know what the legal parameters are, I contend it is the moral ones they choose to ignore.

$9,000,000 of taxpayer dollars to purchase yet another property. Better watch your step or the City of Whitehall will come in and take your property for ‘a public use’ too. Precedents are being set citizens. Who’s next, Eden of Whitehall, you, you’re neighborhood? 

Here’s the whole ‘blighted area’ argument again that more and more city’s, like Whitehall, are using to get rid of things they don’t like in order to put in things they do. They can ‘say’ anything they like but it takes a long view to really get perspective. My blogposts have helped that long view.

You notice it leaves the final decision for this to the city council (a majority) but, of course, because they’re so supremely addicted to their close proximity to the Mayor’s power and her campaign finance beneficence, and reliant on her to do their thinking for them, the outcome is already preordained, long view or moral principles be damned.  

This is an excellent article about what is going on with some cities and eminent domain:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/eminent-domain-being-abused/

T

Here is Resolution 010-2018. I have spoken with parties both in Whitehall and Woodcliff whose versions of what is going on with this resolution differ. Is the city of Whitehall merely trying to ‘abate nuisances’, or are they using processes at their disposal to simply take the properties (which I’ve alleged in other posts)?*:

https://votedixon.com/2015/10/29/woodcliff-v-whitehall-what-lies-beneath/

https://votedixon.com/2015/10/30/woodcliff-v-whitehall-part-two-the-pirates-of-whitehall/

Or, perhaps this time they’re trying to negotiate a purchase of the properties? Being that Whitehall has the Norton Crossing development going in caddy-corner from Woodcliff, are invoking eminent domain to take Eugene Fletcher’s strip shopping center, as well as getting a YMCA in the Community Park, I can’t imagine they would leave this island of a community, aged as Woodcliff is, alone. It is too valuable to the city of Whitehall in the scheme of things.

So too, Whitehall City Hall has spent a great deal of our tax dollars to pursue this community/corner, ostensibly because of purported dilapidation and crime. Are crime and dilapidation truly their obsession (there is some crime in equal numbers elsewhere in our city) or is it merely an advantageous ruse for public consumption, acting as the shiny keys to distract from possible underlying motivation$, those which they’re not being upfront about with citizens? Otherwi$e, why spend so much of our money on one particular $pot? **

Stay tuned. Time will tell.

* It seems the city of Whitehall is really selling something in this Resolution when they include crime statistics (much like what they did when they were making a case against Commons at Royal Landing)                                                                                            https://votedixon.com/2017/08/12/the-politics-of-perception/

**

Last time the Charter Review Commission convened (2013), like now (2018), I wasn’t aware of it happening then either. I had been going to the council meetings and yet, again, like now, I never heard word one about it, not until they talked about the Charter Review Commission coming to council with their recommendations. The scarce or no public communication about the process of, or the convening of the Commission, by anyone in power at City Hall, lent it an air of secrecy and so, it just smacked of political sneakiness (which wouldn’t surprise me in the least). Open governments keep the citizens fully and broadly informed of important considerations which effect their lives. Frank L. Stanton, the first poet laureate of Georgia, said, “The closed door and the sealed lips are prerequisites to tyranny.”

***(they don’t believe in you…they don’t trust in you)***

So, as I recall seeing, some in the commission came into a council committee meeting and talked about what they had arrived at and how. In that talk I learned that the Mayor, among others, had talked with them about things they felt important; taking the influence and gravitas of their positions with them into the meetings to let them know about the things they felt important for the Commission to take into consideration in their review process. Don’t get me wrong, I understand their right to do this, just as they’ll have that same right to do it yet again with this 2018 commission. Rather, my concern with this begs the question; who, if anyone, will be wielding influence on the Charter Review Commission this time, as well, regarding what and why? As illustrated by past actions, as analyzed below, they certainly conjure (and should) some legitimate concerns from citizens, like myself.

Last time, one of the things that came from the commission was the 3rd time term limits were questioned at the ballot. The committee decided that term limits should be ended only for Council. Mayor Maggard, at their June 26, 2013 meeting, questioned why that wasn’t extended to other elected officials (which included herself).
From the meeting’s minutes Mayor Maggard asked why term limits should be ended for some without ending them for others too: ‘Mayor Maggard asked why, or what the reason was for removing term limits for council and not for any other elected officials’. She then went on to argue why term limits were a bad thing. She essentially argued that you couldn’t attract bright, young people who wanted a career in public service if they knew they could only serve 8 years (note the term ‘career’). She is quoted as saying of term limits that they are ‘a detriment to attracting good people to run for office’ (While that is her arguable position, mine is that term limits are, in actuality, a detriment to bad people/career politicians whose position of power and influence, once obtained, can create a self-serving juggernaut of political funding and influence whose grip on power can’t be stopped and which, in all seriousness, can incrementally destroy societies, communities and our democracy itself).
From the Council Committee meeting from July 9, 2013: “Mayor Maggard asked that elimination of term limits be applied to all elected officials.” (Since, by the time of this Council meeting, the Charter Review Commission had not) What influence the mayor’s request had on council or what other influences there were, the council decided to put the commissions recommendation for term limits on the ballot and now include the Mayor, Auditor, City Attorney and Treasurer too. This is how the council themselves amended the committee’s recommendations:

The legislation was then brought forth and voted down. After consideration though (and discussion amongst who knows who), the no votes were later changed to yesses and the ordinance was voted in on Aug. 6th. to put the issue on the November 2013 ballot. Soon after this legislation was passed, an election committee was formed called ‘Your Right To Vote’ which supported the end of term limits. To that committee (no surprise), both Mayor Maggard and then-City Attorney Mike Shannon each donated $300 (Those whose future ‘careers’ in Whitehall elected office would be effected by term limits). Thankfully, the effort to end term limits was, again, defeated by the citizens. (Will the politicians ever listen to the will of the people?)                                                                                                           (Not that it matters, Chris Rodriguez, like too many of them, simply disrespect the voter’s wishes and ignore the spirit and intent of the law. He himself just got reelected (with only 8% of registered voters) to serve his 17th thru 20th years on Council!)

My question then is this; of the things that elected officials bring in to the Charter Review Commission for their consideration, who and what are they truly serving most and best; the citizens of Whitehall and our community itself or, the benefit of the elected officials themselves? Given behavior in the past, which includes the self-serving donations to end term limits and the endless cross-bolstering and financial promulgation* of ‘The Team’ (aka, ‘The Family’), I can’t but feel that it’s the second part of my question and not the first. My opinion? I think, in an overall sense, some officials are parlaying Whitehall’s socio-economic woes for their own benefit (power, influence, glory) and in so doing playing the citizen’s of my hometown for a bunch of suckers because the citizens are too trusting and therefore not paying close enough attention to either realize the depths of these official’s actions or what, if anything, they can do about it**. As an example, even former Mayor John Wolfe decried a Charter Review decision that involved input sold to them by Mayor Maggard at their June 5, 2013 meeting.

During the 2013 Charter Review process, one of the things discussed by both Mayor Maggard and City Auditor Dan Miller were cases made regarding the Parks and Recreation changing into something other than what it had been. All told, Miller made two appearances at Commission meetings, Mayor Maggard, four (One of hers was by proxy)                                                                                                                                                        From the June 5, 2013 Charter Review meeting minutes: ‘Auditor Miller said it becomes a major problem in that there are two different visions and it should be one vision directed by the mayor and focused on what is best for the entire city’. (Why is this so crucial to the city auditor that he feels the need to sell it to the Charter Review Commission for the mayor’s benefit?)                                                                                               Mayor Maggard, in the same meeting’s minutes: ‘All departments need to be accountable and get on board with what we are trying to do’ (What if they feel that what she’s doing is wrong or they disagree and/or don’t like what she’s doing? She wants to force them?). As well in the meetings minutes: ‘Mayor Maggard said she doesn’t necessarily want to take over the running of the parks, but would like to be part of that decision making body to move our vision along’. ( Note she’s not quoted unequivocally as saying, ‘doesn’t want to take over the running of the parks’ but rather, ‘doesn’t necessarily‘. I feel it says everything.  It seems by the measure of these sorts of statements, one can’t help but feel that Mayor Maggard wants everything done in the city to be adherent to her ‘vision’ and that there can be no other way, no other consideration, but hers. Mayor Maggard as the supreme leader (in a democratic plurality with separate branches of power!).

The Charter Review commission then made this recommendation in regard to a change to our charter (bold type and underlining added by me):
(a) There is hereby established a Department of Parks and Recreation to be headed by a Director of Parks and Recreation. The Mayor shall appoint the Director based upon recommendations to be submitted by the Parks and Recreation Commission which shall conduct a search and interview process and forward their top three candidates to the Mayor. The Mayor’s appointment shall be subject to the approval of the Council by a majority vote of its members. The person serving as Director at the time of enactment of this section shall continue to serve under this provision. The Director shall serve at the pleasure of the Mayor and may be removed by the Mayor without cause. During a vacancy in the office of, or the temporary absence or disability of the Director of Parks and Recreation, the Mayor shall appoint an Acting Director of Parks and Recreation to exercise the powers, duties and functions of the Director.

(b) The Director of Parks and Recreation shall operate and maintain all parks and recreational programs and facilities and shall direct, control and supervise employees of the Department. The Director shall attend meetings of the Parks and Recreation Commission, shall keep the Commission fully advised concerning the operation and maintenance of the City’s parks and recreational programs, and shall receive and consider the comments and recommendations of the Commission concerning the City’s parks and recreation programs. The Director of Parks and Recreation shall perform such other powers, duties and functions as required by this Charter, the City’s ordinances and resolution, and as directed by the Mayor.                                                          (In other words, as already pointed out above, the ‘my way or the highway’ approach. The through-line then which can’t help but be taken is more and more power to Kim Maggard, her power and influence exponentially increasing, not by a natural order of things but rather, by the self-exertion of her extending her reach into more and more of the city’s pies)

This all then showed up as the Ordinance you see above; 054-2013. To that then, former Mayor John Wolfe showed up at the special council meeting on July 30th and said this:

While I have never been a fan of John Wolfe’s, in this area, I am in total agreement. Certain things deserve their own autonomy and not everything needs to be controlled under the umbrella of one person’s dictate. Whitehall elected a mayor, not a potentate (nor a C.E.O.) and it is endlessly galling her efforts to eradicate the built-in autonomy of differing entities within the city, and for what, her ‘vision’?                                                        It is my belief then that Mayor Maggard seeks absolute control, as well as the allegiance to her of those surrounding her which will help ensure that control. It is damning (and grotesque) that she has been able to find so many who are so uncritically seduced by her as to jettison their honor and principles (and duty to citizens) for supplicating compliance. Thankfully, the entire council at the time (pre-‘Team’ building) showed sense and restraint and defeated the ordinance unanimously. ( I believe these efforts, made in the early days of her first term, showed her how much she needed others to go to bat for her. By the next election, 2015, she’d started this ‘team’ mentality as seen below, in her election literature from the time.)                                                                             As for 2013 though, it was: Separate powers of government-1, Authoritarianism-0.

So, these are examples of people trying to wield power in the decision-making process that effects the entire community of Whitehall and how that could be a bad thing. Thankfully, more reasoned heads at the time prevailed and attempts to gain greater power were thwarted. But, are we done yet?

Prediction: I believe that Mayor Maggard wants to see the Mayor’s position change to a city manager-run form of government. It is in the grapevine and given past exertions, there is nothing to make me feel it is out of the realm of possibility. If such a thing were floated by the 2018 Charter Review Commission, then recommended by them and put into an ordinance by council to place it on the ballot and passed by the citizens, it would ultimately be in Council’s hands to ‘hire’ the city manager position…see?

If this scenario were to become a reality, my worry would be this: with Kim Maggard being in the top position now for a few years (with many people’s help, btw, thank-you Zach Woodruff, among others), it would stand to reason then that it would be easy for council to simply hire her over others, right? With open interviews for the part (as it should be done) what odds do others who aren’t Kim Maggard (but yet who are eminently qualified) have at that slot who don’t have a grip of influence on the people who can hire or fire them?  Given that too many elected officials are either joined at the hip with the Mayor by campaign contributions and endorsements that were given or taken*** and the recent sidling up to the Mayor to be on her ‘team’, its not such a stretch of the imagination to believe that, in this scenario, these ‘team mates’ could be swayed to choose what is beneficial for her (convenient, see: hands in pies). Soooo then…were this to happen, this change would give her the opportunity she seemed to desire in which to side-step those career-killing term limits that might prematurely end her ‘career’ (those limits she put in so much effort to end) and allow her to remain in power to exert her command and influence ‘running’ the city, never giving up her control of the power and influence her actions produce, nor the glory she receives in her position. This scenario then would make all these things which she’s exerted so much effort to make realities, (having this ‘team’ in a separate branch of government, an iron grip on power so important to her) seem downright advantageously coincidental, wouldn’t you say?

We shall see in the next few weeks if this prediction comes true or not. Keep your eyes open to see if she (or a political surrogate or proxy) comes to the Charter Review meetings and brings this up. If so, mark my words here as developments arise. (Depending on what happens, I will speak on the pros and cons of such a thing at a later date.)

Apropos of nothing in particular, as an FYI, it is rumored through the grapevine that Councilpersons Bob Bailey and Karen Conison are mulling mayoral runs, so too perhaps, Whitehall’s Auditor Dan Miller. Bailey and Conison will term out at the end of ’19 so one has to ask if they’re finished or have other things in mind. All would have repercussions of varying importance and, based on the city-manager possibility, interesting dynamics, so, stay tuned.

A last point is this: while city officials can offer thoughts on things they deem important (and why), while Charter Review members can elect to utterly ignore what officials bring to them (as they have), those officials opinions and appearances have the strength to effect their influence (undoubtedly), that which can be daunting and hard to ignore or bypass. As such then, I reiterate how important it is you go and watch the proceedings, don’t allow it to quietly pass by without any monitoring or think that this sort of boring governmental workings don’t matter. What transpires, what is recommended and what (and whose) influence is exerted is too important to ignore.

Monday, Feb. 26th at 6:30 pm in the Council Committee room at City Hall

*https://votedixon.com/2015/10/09/why-whitehalls-governance-is-so-awful/

**https://votedixon.com/2017/11/06/the-politics-of-perception-the-underlying-truth-whitehalls-leaders-dont-see-understand-or-choose-to-ignore

***Everyone she endorsed and/or supported financially won their council seat in 2017. The goliath of her power here in Whitehall (and her money) is what helps get her ‘team’ elected and re-elected. (The more ‘team’ members she creates and keeps, the stronger her power and the more bedrock hold she keeps on her power). Patterns matter and tell a story.

Ward 1 Council Chris Rodriguez:   Mayor Kim Maggard $250                                                      Ward 2 Council JoAnna Heck:         Mayor Kim Maggard $250                                                     Ward 4 Council Lori Elmore:           Mayor Kim Maggard $250

Leslie LaCorte, Lee Stahley, Larry Morrison and myself are the only candidates who didn’t take any money from government insiders. (Outside of Larry and Lee being government insiders)

Because this information seems to be kept close to the vest, you may not know that there have been 5 people chosen to sit on the Charter Review Commission, which happens every five years. Their job is to look through Whitehall’s charter and determine what, if anything, needs tweaking, changed, etc. (This is how the last questioning of the term limits subject came to the ballot). I have been going to every council meeting since the election and I’ve heard ZERO mentions of this coming up, let alone selections being made. It’s aggravating due to little advanced notice of its coming nor open solicitation for citizens willing to serve. In this, what would otherwise be simply viewed as a group of citizens getting together to improve our charter, and with it Whitehall, (a terrific thing) is instead lent a patina of political suspicion given that it’s a group of people who have been (with little to no public notice) personally hand-picked as worthy by those in political power at City Hall. If those chosen who elect to serve can do so with impartiality in regard to those who chose them and stand firm and independent in their decision-making processes, then that is all any citizen of Whitehall could hope for, and expect.  It is the quiet way they’re selected though which raises my concern, as it should you, and given the track record of some at city hall, the process then begs some amount of scrutiny on yours and my part.

For the record, I asked Clerk of Council Mary Freimark to email me a list of the Whitehall citizens chosen for the Charter Review Commission and after speaking with Council President Jim Graham, he provided her this list:                                                                             Kim Bentley                                                                                                                                             Allyson Sharp                                                                                                                                         Kevin Skinner                                                                                                                                         Jack Soma                                                                                                                                                 Paul Werther                                                                                                                                           Van Gregg- alternate*

They had a preliminary meeting the evening of the 7th to ensure they all agreed to serve and select a time for their first meeting. It is scheduled for Monday, Feb. 26th at 6:30 pm in the Council Committee room which is the smaller meeting room behind the larger council chambers at City Hall. This first meeting they will all be sworn in and given roles (secretary, etc.). I really encourage the citizens to go. This is your government at work. What they talk about, who talks with them about what and what they decide may well have great impact on your lives.

*Jim Graham himself told me about Van Gregg agreeing to be the alternate.

Since so many citizens don’t come to the Council meetings and/or know where their money is spent, how much, etc., here then are the numbers for everyone’s perusal. Expenditures for everything from traffic signal utilities to the salary of the Clerk of Court.
Enjoy.

So

S