CH City Council opts to muzzle themselves

No doubt it must be a tough life being a member of the Colonial Heights City Council. Not only are these fine representatives left to guide the city through a myriad of city business issues, they also have to develop policies to guide themselves through meetings so as not to get off track when addressing citizens who appear before the board for non-agenda items. It seems there have been enough of these incidents in which a council member and a citizen discuss issues and waste city business time that council wants to change the rules to hinder such discussions.

Citing that they do not want to put out wrong or misleading information, Council’s new rule would keep its members from engaging in an open discussion about an issue that has not been raised as an agenda item. Citizens are more than welcome to request to be added to the agenda, and have to follow a small procedure to request being added to the agenda. Council says that doing so allows the city to be prepared for the subject, and lets the staff have time to research the issue so that they can respond in a helpful manner and not put anyone on the spot.

Several members of council stated that they have been put on the spot because of incomplete or erroneous information that was provided “off the cuff” and put them in an awkward position. All of this is understandable. Certainly, it’s important that the information that council puts out is accurate and as correct as possible, it deals with integrity.

The main problem with the new rule is more a matter of perception than it is anything else. From a citizen’s perspective, it comes across as another way to stifle the citizenry. Still, as Mayor Scott Davis said, people will still be able to approach council. I am reasonably sure that council is interested in hearing citizens out. They asked to change the language of the change to allow them to ask questions, ostensibly for clarification of an issue.

They cited an incident that led to a 45-minute discussion in which the same comments were dredged over and over. Still, council has the authority to nip such conversations in the bud. The onus falls on City Council to police itself on these matters.

My question is does it really require a rule change to control situations that they have the ability to control themselves? Mayor Davis said that he could halt the discussions, but he wouldn’t want to stop another council member from talking to a citizen. Yet if all of council agreed that such situations arise and that they are best not addressed in a public forum, what would be the problem with cutting them short?

John Wood opened the discussion stating that the change creates a bad perception of council. When a citizen comes before the board, they will now just have to listen, stay mute, and sit like a sphinx. Milton Freeland was told that there is no fine if a council member opted to disregard the rule and engage the citizen in open discussion. So, in reality, the change isn’t really that big of a deal. It merely sets a boundary.

But wouldn’t it be just as simple for council to cut the discussion short instead of relying on some rule as a reminder? Joe Green stated that he was probably as guilty as anyone for interacting with citizens and the change may serve to help reel him in in those circumstances.

Mayor Davis said that most citizens are unaware of the rules relating to speaking at a city council meeting. He is right. Experience is what teaches citizens that there are rules. Council is right in not wanting to put out information that may not be accurate, but isn’t this something that they can handle by policing themselves without having to create an additional rule?

Politicians: Strive to avoid even the perception of impropriety

We all should have the kinds of friends that Governor Bob McDonnell and his wife have. New York shopping sprees, free Rolex watches, thousands of dollars in “gifts” and, dare we say, gratuities.

And for what?

Ladies and gentlemen, I hate to be the one to bear witness to this statement, but we live in a quid-pro-quo world. Or in layman’s terms, I scratch your back and you scratch mine. Maybe it should be squid-pro-quo because the tentacles on that kind of stuff are long and numerous.

It’s beyond belief that McDonnell and his wife were the beneficiaries of such wonderful gifts without their being some kind of payback behind the scenes. When dealing with issues like this, most attorneys would invoke the comment that elected officials should “avoid even the appearance of impropriety.”

Despite Star Scientific CEO Jonnie Williams being a friend of McDonnell’s, such grandiose treatment tends to make one wonder. For the more skeptical, there is just no way that this doesn’t have the aroma of pay off. Sorry but Richmond is rife with political officials who are serving time for taking payoffs (bribes not gifts or gratuities), and in this day, age, and time such largesse needs to be viewed with more than just a jaundiced eye.

In the end, it may turn out that Bob and crew did nothing illegal. But the whole thing fails to pass the sniff test, if you catch my meaning. In general, it just doesn’t seem right.

When Bob’s wife, Maureen, accepted gifts in excess of $10,000 from hubby’s best buddy Williams, she crossed an ethics boundary most elected public personalities would best not follow. By accepting a $10,000 suede jacket, two pair of designer shoes, a Louis Vitton leather handbag, and a designer dress Ms. McDonnell failed to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Even if, as it appears they must be, Williams and Governor McDonnell are the very best of friends, the alleged New York City Oscar de la Renta shopping spree smells of pay off.

To make matters worse, the “presents” were not disclosed in the governor’s statement of economic interest for that year. While the governor may be within his rights not to report the gifts, simply accepting them gives the appearance of impropriety. Given Richmond’s rich history of bribes and kickbacks, it’s hard to overlook such a deal especially when the person providing the gifts is in litigation with the state over a $700,000 tax bill.

Really, it all comes back to pulling on loose strings. A reporter sees something that doesn’t look quite right, and they start to tug. That’s what happened with Watergate, Sandusky, and now, apparently, with McDonnell.

People talk about the fourth estate, the news media in general, as the outside source for keeping the government and society on the straight and narrow. Evil deeds can’t stand the light of public knowledge; they live in shadow and darkness. Good media representatives go a long way to shedding light on those things, and it typically starts with little things, like failing to report over $10,000 in gifts.

People like McDonnell, and for that matter all political persons, need to understand that by their own choice they live in a fishbowl. Not everyone is going to agree with the dictums and decisions they make, and any good reporter is going to question things that seem out of sync with the people. Like it or not, reporters work for the people; at their best, they are a necessary piece of the whole checks and balances equation.

I’m not certain how the whole McDonnell affair will turn out in the end. But I do know the entire matter could have been avoided had McDonnell simply followed what most lawyer’s would have suggested “avoid even the appearance of impropriety.” In the end, “if it looks like a bribe, walks like a bribe, and smells like a bribe—it’s a politician.”

Snowden-Taking the Moral High Ground

The United States would like to have things both ways when it comes to exacting justice from its peoples. First, we want them to be honest, and forthright, and dedicated. Then, we want them to do all kinds of radical things and not speak out about it when what we are being asked to do is clearly unethical, immoral, and probably illegal.

During Vietnam soldiers were given orders to do horrific things to civilian populations that someone felt were supporting the Viet Cong. There were at least dozens of incidents in which the population bore the brunt of bombings, napalm runs, and artillery attacks at the behest of someone in Saigon or elsewhere. Of those, we have only the My Lai massacre of March 16, 1968 to show how the government works.

While everyone who was around in those days is aware of the outcome and how Lt. William Calley was singled out for prosecution, we tend to forget the initial attacks on the so-called whistle blowers who let everyone know about such a horrible event. Initially, the three servicemen tried to stop the massacre and afterward did nothing more than tell the truth about it. Several U.S. congressmen denounced the men as traitors. They received hate mail and death threats and had mutilated animals dropped on their doorsteps. Later on, they were widely praised and given Army medals for their “heroic” actions.

In the more recent NSA case, where Edward Snowden decided to “leak” information about all these questionable activities the U.S. Government is perpetrating on “we the people,” things are lining up pretty much the same way. What Snowden chose to do, while it may be “treasonous” in some eyes, falls clearly outside the bounds of legal versus illegal. What the NSA did was clearly unethical, likely immoral, and quite possibly illegal.

So now it seems the government is upset with Mr. Snowden about letting people know what many of us had suspected for a long time. The US Government will go to great lengths to get the goods on the American public. While they may only be using it to catch bad guys, I personally have a problem with the government snooping. Having grown up in the 60s I know they cannot be trusted.

In light of the other events that have come about, is it really such a stretch to say the NSA is above board with the data they are collecting? I mean, how are those folk any more trustworthy than the IRS? And the IRS is not trustworthy at all.

For years, the running joke was that if you did something the president didn’t like he would sic the IRS on you. Well, apparently, that joke isn’t totally true. The president needn’t sic them on anyone they seem to have figured out on their own who to attack.

Perhaps, as my son puts it, this has been going on for decades. In which case, what’s the difference anyway? It doesn’t really matter how much we rail against the machine, because the only thing that can investigate the machine is…yeah, you guessed it, the FBI. Oh, and did we tell you about the scandal at the FBI? No? Oh well, not to worry it will all be in the papers somewhere pretty soon, and the FBI will be trying to shut down one of their own who finally see the light and let out all the information about how those storm troopers go about their business.

All I can say is you have to trust your government. They are only out there looking out for your best interests, really. And if a few ants get squished along the way, we’ll I am sure they are sorry and will send you a note stating so.