uvAggravator2.0

Loved the headline, above, which was on my latest op-ed in Wednesday’s paper.  Readers of this blog may recognize some of the content as having been from this earlier blog post. It was this Wall Street Journal article that prompted me to dust it off and update it for the op-ed. The stats I used came from Norfolk’s most recent budget.

It’s about time.

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has finally decided to divest himself of the campaign donations he received from Bobby Thompson, the director of the U.S. Navy Veterans Association. The organization and its director have come under scrutiny in numerous states. According to the article, six states plus Virginia have launched investigations and Thompson has disappeared.

While the other recipients of campaign contributions from Thompson, including Gov. McDonnell, donated those funds to charity a couple of months ago, the AG hung on to his, claiming that Thompson had not been found guilty of anything. The AG is a smart fellow, but even he could no longer deny that Thompson and his group were probably not legit.

In a press release Wednesday afternoon, Cuccinelli said that no decision has been made as to which charity or charities will receive the money. “Our goal here is identify veterans’ charities that have an impact around the Commonwealth – and then direct those funds where they can be of most help to our nation’s heroes.”  Once this has been decided, the campaign intends to announce the recipients.

A not-so-quick update on what’s going on in Portsmouth, Virginia Beach, and Norfolk. I’ll have to wait until I have more time to catch up on the other local races in Hampton Roads this November.

Portsmouth

The interim mayor of Portsmouth, selected by the council, turned out to be a former Vice Mayor Bernard Griffin. The vote was 5-1, which is interesting to say the least. That means the two council members who offered themselves for the position ended up voting for someone else! I’m guessing that was an interesting closed session, with the two of them trying to sway three others to their respective sides. The official vote, as is generally the case, never reflects the real intentions of council, just their compromise. And the one dissenter, Paige Cherry, obviously couldn’t be convinced in the closed session to go along. His guy, Bishop Curtis Edmonds, was not available for the council interviews held Monday, but was supposed to have been considered.

Griffin has pledged not to run in November. No such pledges yet from Elizabeth Psimas or Charles Whitehurst, the two council members who applied for the appointment. I suspect we’ll see one or both of them announce soon. The only other name I’ve heard mentioned as a candidate for the fall is Kenny Wright.

Virginia Beach

The story of the day yesterday was that Mayor Will Sessoms has amassed a sizeable warchest – according to VPAP, he has $192,986 on hand – and intends to use some of it to help other council candidates. Brian Kirwin raises some good questions about the supposed transparency of Virginia’s campaign financing disclosures. Who among the candidates will Sessoms, who out-raised all of them combined, favor?

Virginia Beach continues to out-pace the other localities with the number of candidates. Two years ago, there were 15 candidates for the council and school board. This year, the number has risen to 23.  Only one council seat – Beach borough, represented by John Uhrin – is unopposed., while three school board seats are unchallenged. Still, it is impressive that so many have offered themselves, particularly in a November race. At some point, I’m hoping that the newspaper starts covering these races.

Norfolk

The special election to fill the remainder of Daun Hester’s term on council will be on the ballot in November. So far, two candidates have announced: real estate appraiser Earl Fraley  on July 8 and Realtor Angelia Williams on July 27. Fraley has the support of councilman Paul Riddick, which can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your point of view.  Williams has not announced any official supporters yet, but her connection to Norfolk Commissioner of the Revenue Sharon McDonald is raising some eyebrows.

With the filing deadline of August 13 still a couple of weeks away, I am hearing that others may enter the fray. I don’t live in Ward 7, which is a super ward encompassing half of the city, but I’ll be paying close attention to this race. I’d like to see a strong, independent voice join the council.

It seems an English professor at the College of William & Mary thinks he has located the building which housed an 18th-century school for black children, both free blacks and those who were slaves.

The find would be remarkable not only for its historical significance, but for its location in the political and ideological epicenter of slavery. The college itself was funded by taxes on tobacco harvested by slaves. The college, its faculty and even some students owned slaves, and slave labor built core campus buildings, maintained the grounds and fed the residents.

I hope the excavation at the original site and testing of the existing building get done. This would be one heck of a find.

In a ruling yesterday, a three-member panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed a website to publish the Social Security numbers of people on a website, The Virginia Watchdog. The site is dedicated to warning the public that various documents are being posted online by government officials that contain this information. In 2008, the Virginia General Assembly passed a law to prohibit individuals from publishing such private information online, even though their own officials do so. The website owner, B.J. Ostergren, filed suit, claiming it was a violation of her First Amendment rights.

So, the question: was the court correct? If so, why? If not, why not?

Inquiring minds want to know

We are less than 100 days to November 2 and the race in the 2nd Congressional District is well underway.

After winning the Republican nomination last month, Scott Rigell found himself a little short on cash. As of June 30, Rigell had a mere $227,000 on hand while incumbent Democrat Glenn Nye had $1.26 million. Through June 30, Rigell had pumped $923,000 into his campaign. Just a couple of days after the Pilot story, he dumped another $500,000 in.  Independent candidate Kenny Golden had about $1,300 on hand as of June 30. I’m guessing TV ads can’t be too far off.

Unlike last cycle, one thing we’re likely not to see are debates. Nye would like to include Golden in the debates but Rigell’s camp is balking, saying that they want Golden to demonstrate “that he has the support of 15 percent of voters as determined by three independent polls.” That ain’t gonna happen. So either we’ll see some debates with just Golden and Nye, or we won’t see any debates at all. I’m betting on the latter.

In the meantime, Nye continues to serve in Congress and make moves to separate himself from the Democratic label. A member of the Blue Dog Coalition, he voted against the budget and against cap-and-trade in 2009, against health care earlier this year, and just last week, against the extension of unemployment benefits.  It is no wonder, then, that his website and emails make no reference to his party affiliation; in fact, the latest emails carry the tagline “An independent voice for us.”

Rigell has trouble with moderate Republicans, Nye has trouble with liberal Democrats, and Golden is hoping there are enough disaffected members of both parties for him to squeeze out a win. The fall should be interesting.

UPDATE: I’ve been informed that the Rigell camp now wants Golden to show 15% support in five polls, not three. Wow. Will there even be five independent polls on this race between now and November?

Virginia Senator Jim Webb started a firestorm when his op-ed, “Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege,” appeared in the Wall Street Journal. What Webb said is nothing new. His is a nuanced argument: that affirmative action, under the umbrella of diversity, has benefitted groups of people that it never was intended to benefit, and it is has done so at the expense of whites, particularly poor whites.

I have to admit that I was put off initially by the title of the piece, which, more than likely, Webb did not write. White privilege is not a myth: go read the Peggy McIntosh’s seminal article (pdf) on the topic and tell me that there is not an inherent benefit in our society for being white. Webb’s love for our shared Scots-Irish heritage tends to sometimes obscure the harsh reality: you can take the poorest, least educated white person, teach them how to dress and speak, and that person will be almost universally accepted. The same is cannot be said for a black person. Perhaps I need to send the Senator a copy of Noel Ignatiev’s book, “How the Irish Became White.”

Webb seems to be blinded by his desire to improve the lot of his Appalachian kin, who he thinks have been wronged by the expansion of diversity. He inches very close to the “reverse discrimination” mark as being the reason so many whites are poor and remain poor. Webb fails to acknowledge that many of the anti-poverty programs put in place in the 1960s were geared towards poor whites just as much as poor blacks. There are reasons, Senator Webb, why the white and black underclass remain. The two groups have much in common, even if politics mostly keeps them separate.

The timing of this article is curious as well. Given all that transpired last week with Shirley Sherrod, it’s just a weird read. To whom, exactly, is Webb speaking? His rich, all-white colleagues in the Senate? Or, in gearing up for a re-election campaign, possibly against George Allen, is he trying to send a signal to “real Virginia” that he’s one of them?

But I agree with him that in pursuing diversity, we have lost sight of the original purpose of affirmative action. The goal was redress for black Americans, who, along with Native Americans, had suffered discrimination at the hands of our government. Interestingly enough, Webb made no mention of Native Americans.  Nor did he mention that the largest beneficiaries of affirmative action have been white women.

Diversity has the same Latin root as diversion – diversus­ – and while not synonymous, the two terms are linked, at least in my mind. As America has embraced diversity in our culture, we have been diverted from the real issues that are unique to black Americans. No other group was brought here in chains, enslaved for 250 years, and subjected to second-class citizenship for another 100 years after that. When Webb says “generations of such deficiencies do not disappear overnight,” he is absolutely correct. One must actually have boots in order to pull oneself up by bootstraps.

There should be – and are – programs to assist the poor. That doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be programs geared towards black Americans – because there should be. When only five of the Fortune 500 CEOs are black, it’s hard to claim that the playing field is level.

Let me get this straight. Two of Portsmouth’s council members want to be appointed mayor. So the four other council members will be interviewing the candidates, including those two. But when the deliberations start on who will be appointed, all six members of council will weigh in.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Am I the only one that sees something wrong with the two council members/mayor candidates participating in the selection of the appointment? It seems to me that if the two of them are not participating in the interviewing process, they should also not participate in the selection process. That is, unless the Portsmouth council intends to allow the two non-members of council to sit in. Why should two be able to advocate privately for themselves and two not?

Seriously – the two council members, Elizabeth Psimas and Charles Whitehurst, should not be in the room when the decision is being made. Such is the price you pay for offering to serve. After all, one of the candidates – Curtis Edmonds – can’t even make the interviews, although he supposedly is still going to be “considered.” What kind of transparency includes having half the candidates vote on the position themselves? Besides, who do you expect them to vote for, if not themselves?

One more thing: just in case Portsmouth hasn’t thought about it, they should consider interviewing each candidate separately, without the others present. I’m assuming the four members have decided on some questions to ask. That being the case, it seems only fair that each candidate have the opportunity to answer without the others hearing their answers and copying their responses.

Brian Kirwin has an interesting article up about the effect of campaign finance laws. He argues that they have created a millionaires club in Congress.

Currently, 44% of all of Congress and specifically 48% of the Senate are millionaires. That compares with the general public, of whom millionaires are only a whopping 1%.

There are a lot of reasons why Congress has an over-representation of the wealthy in its ranks, and restrictions on contributions may very well be one of them. I’d love to see how this number has changed over time, particularly prior to the implementation of latest restrictions.

I don’t have an answer to the question of the cost of campaigns. But I remain concerned that increasingly, the only people who run for office are those with money or with access to money. Neither of those things bodes well for them actually representing the bulk of us.

Um, if you say so Take The Ocean Test and report your results in the comments.

According to The Virginian-Pilot, the Portsmouth City Council will interview four candidates for the vacant position of mayor. The interviews will be conducted in council chambers Monday at 7pm and the session will be televised on the city’s channel 48.

The four candidates are current Vice Mayor Charles Whitehurst, current council member Elizabeth Psimas, former Vice Mayor Bernard Griffin and Bishop Curtis Edmonds. The candidates will be interviewed by the four council members who are not seeking the appointment, with an expected decision to be made at Tuesday’s council meeting. The appointee will serve only until the special election November 2.

Selection of either Whitehurst or Psimas would trigger an appointment, followed by a special election, for the seat they currently occupy on council.  At this point, I am not aware of any announced candidates for the November election, although if reading between the lines of today’s article is allowed, it looks like the two of them are planning to do so. I’d like to urge Portsmouth to not appoint either of them if that is their plan. Instead appoint someone who pledges not to run. Four people should not be creating essentially an incumbent to run in November.

My latest op-ed piece appeared in The Virginian-Pilot Tuesday. This week’s topic: constitutional offices. I think it is an issue that is ripe for the governor’s reform commission – just as it has been for prior reform commissions. That nothing has been done to seriously address them is a testament to the strength of the lobbying efforts of holders of the offices.

One thing that I found interesting as I reviewed various documents, letters to the editor, and so forth from those who wish to keep all of the constitutional offices in place was the use of part of my favorite Thomas Jefferson quote, the one which graces the box at the top right of my blog.

I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves

I think they are missing the most important part:

and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.

The bar for eliminating these offices is far too high. The requirements are:

1. A petition, signed by 20% of the number of voters who voted in the last presidential election., with all signatures gathered in 90 days; followed by
2. A referendum on the ballot at the next general election; followed by
3. A request from the locality for a charter change.

That’s taking it away from the people, leaving us with literally no corrective action should we chose to exercise our discretion. Why isn’t the signature requirement the same as that for removal from office?

~

There are some advantages and disadvantages of the printed paper. One of the disadvantages is no hyperlinks So here are some of the sources that I drew on for the article:

• Kaine’s budget item – In his speech to the money committees about his budget, Kaine proposed turning over the entire cost of operating the Commissioner’s and Treasurer’s offices to the localities, with the exception of the salaries of the two electeds. The line item – 425 – had wording in it which appeared to override the provisions of § 24.2-685.
• Remarks of Gary Clemens, president of the Virginia Association of Local Elected Constitutional Officers (pdf) – Look at his first item.
• A 2010 Senate Finance Committee presentation on constitutional officers (pdf)
• The 1990 JLARC report on Funding of Constitutional Officers (pdf)
• A 2006 JLARC review of outstanding recommendations from prior gubernatorial reform commissions – Wilder’s in 1992, Allen’s in 1994 and Warner’s in 2002 (pdf)

Gotcha politics took center stage over the past couple of days in the case of Shirley Sherrod. A good run down of events can be found here. After that post was written, the full video of Sherrod’s statement was made available by the NAACP, who retracted their earlier condemnation of her.

This morning, there are reports that Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack is reconsidering her firing. That she was fired in the first place – without a full hearing of the facts – is troublesome.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

Yes, we live in a 24/7 information world. But that doesn’t mean we fail to do due diligence on the facts. The swift condemnation of Sherrod by those who should know better was an utter failure in the old adage “consider the source.” Because of the source, the very first thing that should have happened is that someone should have gotten hold of the full video.

But no. Folks were too busy tripping over themselves trying to prove how quickly they could disassociate from a “racist.”Except Shirley Sherrod is no racist.

Even the edited video, at the end, gave a hint that this was not a racist story. The support of the white farmer couple for Sherrod should have raised alarms.

Nope. It was easier – safer – to label this 62-year-old black woman a racist.

When the so-called “leadership” in this country is quick to condemn, without all the facts, it’s a sad state of affairs for our country.

The above is the title of an eight-part series that The Virginian-Pilot is running in the newspaper. Part 3 appeared today and you can read a part of it here.

I grew up in Phoebus, just outside of Fort Monroe. Heck, I even worked there two summers, when I was 16 and 17. Nevertheless, I was quite unaware of most of the history of “Freedom Fort,” as the site was known. It certainly wasn’t a part of the curriculum in school.

The series in the paper is riveting and well worth a read.

For a bit of background on this, take a look at this Daily Press story from 2006.

A reprint of a post of mine from November 2006. Seems some folks need reminding. Posting a comment here is a privilege, not a right. And refusing to be respectful to others is one sure way to get banned.

dem·o·crat (dĕm‘ə-krăt‘)
n.

1. 1. An advocate of democracy.
   2. One who believes in social equality or discounts distinctions in rank.
2. Democrat A member of the Democratic Party.

[French démocrate, back-formation from démocratie, democracy. See democracy.]

dem·o·crat·ic (dĕm‘ə-krăt‘ĭk)
adj.

1. Of, characterized by, or advocating democracy: democratic government; a democratic union.
2. Of or for the people in general; popular: a democratic movement; democratic art forms.
3. Believing in or practicing social equality: “a proper democratic scorn for bloated dukes and lords” (George du Maurier).
4. Democratic Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Democratic Party.
   democratically dem‘o·crat‘i·cal·ly adv.
   

Note the difference. Democrat is a noun. Democratic is an adjective. Now, do I need to define nouns and adjectives as well?

By now, many of you have no doubt noticed that BlogNetNews is no longer accessible. Driving the decision is, of course, money. Dave Mastio, who operated BNN, told me via email last week that the site has been losing enough money of late that it is for sale. In the meantime, it has shut down. He said he may restart it if the economy improves.

The original Virginia political blog aggregator, Waldo’s Virginia Political Blogroll, has remained active throughout. Although I was Virginia editor of BNN, it was at VPL oops VPB that I started my day. Now that it is once again the only game in town (again), I suspect others will be heading there as well.

When I started this blog more than four years ago, it was because I had something to say and felt like my opinion was not one of those being voiced elsewhere. Whether anyone read it or not wasn’t an issue; it was just me putting it out there. As time has passed, I’ve learned an awful lot from interacting with people – both those that agree with me and those that don’t. For me, those are the two biggest upsides of having this blog.

But there are some downsides. One is that, despite my comment policy, some will push the envelope. Those people are pretty easily dealt with. Harder to deal with, sometimes, are the emails that come through the Contact me link at the top of the blog.

I get a lot of wonderful emails from people who cannot or will not post a comment here. But those can be overshadowed by the venomous ones that come through. Such is the case of one I received this morning. If a Leonard Pitts column appears in The Virginian-Pilot, if there is a column anywhere on the issue of race – like a recent one in the Seattle Times – you can best believe that I’m getting an email from this guy – one filled with such racist drivel that his emails are no longer allowed to be delivered to anyone at the Pilot. He has been banned from commenting on PilotOnline, he has been banned from commenting on this blog. And no doubt, I’ll get another email once he reads this post.

I thought he had discovered me when my article, The struggle toward inclusiveness, appeared in the paper. Not so. Recently, I was cleaning out some old papers and ran across a letter that he had written to me years ago. The content of his letter was the same, only the medium was different.

I could turn off the Contact Me link, but that wouldn’t be fair to everyone else. I could post some of his comments, but most wouldn’t get past my spam filter. Besides, I refuse to give a platform to racists.

Sometimes, there’s a lot more to running a blog besides posting an article or two.

As if the recall of its mayor wasn’t enough, Portsmouth citizens are having to deal with the ongoing situation of Portsmouth Sheriff Bill Watson, which continues to deteriorate.  The city attorney has told council to consider suing him to get him to do his duties, the U.S. Marshals Service has pulled prisoners from the city’s jails, and at least three judges have complained about courthouse security. The problem for Watson is that even if all of this is related to budget cuts his office has suffered, his constant crying of “wolf” at every opportunity makes him less credible.

Already there are calls for his recall. Unfortunately, while Portsmouth could recall its mayor, the constitutional officers, of which the sheriff is one, cannot be recalled. There is no provision in the code to do so. There is, however, a removal provision in § 24.2-233. (An explanation of the process is in § 24.2-235.) Seems to me that if a suit is filed by Portsmouth council to get him to perform his duties, the “neglect of duty” test is met.

But hey – I’m no lawyer.

Um, guilty

Are You Shampoo or Conditioner?

Gov. Bob McDonnell announced Wednesday a budget surplus of $220 million. Part of that surplus comes from the accelerated collection of sales tax, a shell game of sorts that shifts funds normally collected in July to June. This isn’t a new trick – we’ve seen it before – but it does cloud a bit the true picture of where we are. Norm has other thoughts on the surplus as does Paige.

Political considerations aside, I can’t get too excited about the budget surplus. Virginia still has a tough road ahead and until the legislature is willing to make some hard choices, we still will have clogged roads, unemployment, and a Medicaid reimbursement among the lowest in the country.

In case you missed it, my latest op-ed appeared in Wednesday’s Virginian-Pilot. A picture, they say, is worth a thousand words, and the graphic to the left gets to the core of what I was trying to say. I realized, as I was working on the piece and talking to people, that many are not familiar with what a bell curve actually looks like; heck, some only relate the term “Bell Curve” to that book by the same name.

The Boston Globe piece I referenced in an earlier post is really a part of this conversation. By focusing on the extremes, we are less likely to even listen to the other side – and that does not bode well for our future. Somehow, we’ve got to bring the conversation back to the point of common agreement. Then we can try to solve the issues that separate us.

Silence nailed it in his comment:

Once we as a people come to acknowledge and respect the different cognitive frameworks each of us bring to try and understand the world around us, I suspect we’ll actually start to make great strides both in being able to understand complex issues and in respecting points of view which differ from our own.

Republicans and Democrats generally look at a problem from different angles. With few exceptions, neither side is inherently right or inherently wrong; they simply have, as Silence said, different cognitive frameworks.  I’m convinced that if we start attacking a problem from the point of agreement, we can get to a resolution on the parts on which we disagree.

Once again, thanks for all the feedback on the op-ed.  Whether you agree or disagree with me, the responses make me think. And that’s important to me.

So says the Boston Globe:

In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

[...]

Our brains are designed to create cognitive shortcuts — inference, intuition, and so forth — to avoid precisely that sort of discomfort while coping with the rush of information we receive on a daily basis. Without those shortcuts, few things would ever get done. Unfortunately, with them, we’re easily suckered by political falsehoods.

This is scary stuff.  As one who advocates for an informed populace, to think that people don’t just cling to incorrect information but rather twist the facts to match it, flies in the face of what education is supposed to accomplish.

Let’s hope somebody comes up with a way to re-wire our brains!

h/t Taegan Goddard

7:54 Final numbers: 10,821 voted in favor of recall, 5,154 against. I can guess what the headlines will look like tomorrow.

~

7:47 pm All but the provisional ballots and one precinct are in. 10,331 voted in favor of recall, 4,987 voted against. The total votes cast – 15,318 – exceeded the total number of votes cast in the 2008 mayoral election – 11,416. Now, had those people voted two years ago, it’s possible we wouldn’t even be here today. Turnout so far is 25%, which is a higher percentage than turned out for Norfolk’s elections this past May.

~

7:42 pm By the way, for those following along at home – the Portsmouth website is providing results faster than the SBE website.

~

7:38pm – 23 of 32 precincts in. Vote is 8,071 in favor (69.45%) to 3,549 (30.54%) against. Have to admit that I’m surprised that the turnout was this high. Yes, there has been a lot in the paper about the election but still. There are 61,376 registered voters in Portsmouth.

~

7:29pm – almost 66% of precincts in. About 71% in favor of recall.

~

7:21pm – 50% of the precincts in. The margin is narrowing but still over 71% voted for recall.

~

It’s 7:18pm. The polls in Portsmouth have been closed for less than 20 minutes. A little less than 1/3 of the precincts have reported. The vote to recall Portsmouth mayor James Holley is roughly 78% in favor, 22% against.

I don’t see how he survives. Holley will be the first to be recalled twice.

Guest post by Councilman Tommy Smigiel, whose edited letter appeared in the Virginian-Pilot today. Here is the unedited version.

I’d like to set the record straight and step out on a positive note after reading Kevin Murphy’s letter to the editor “Downtown is No. 1 in growth” (Virginian-Pilot, July 9).  In his remarks Kevin Murphy suggested that I do not care about all of Norfolk and have ignored the contributions of downtown.  With all due respect to the writer, he is misinformed regarding my position.  Not once have I ever said I was against downtown.  During my recent campaign for office, I did question the amount of money spent on some very high dollar projects, such as the Light Rail and Towne Point Park, but my greater concern was for the priorities of past leadership when they committed finite tax dollars for luxury items and let our schools and streets decline and decay.  I am not against downtown development, but I am for bringing balance to how our funds are allocated in the city.

During my campaign, I repeatedly acknowledged the economic importance of downtown, but I also explained that it was time we shared our focus with other parts of the city that have been neglected.

The government intervention to revitalize downtown Norfolk has succeeded.  Decades ago a local businessman told Dr. Mason Andrews no one would ever build another office building in downtown Norfolk and Dr. Andrews respectfully disagreed and persevered.  Tax dollars and government incentives have done the job of stimulating private investment.  With vibrant and energetic citizens, such as Mr. Murphy, I’m certain the downtown communities will continue to thrive and grow.

But there is much work to be done in our city.  In parts of Ward 5 residents still do not have curbs or sidewalks.  And there are too many detrimental residential and commercial units, sustained by slumlords who cash rent checks quickly, but take their time maintaining the properties.  Drive down Little Creek Road and see some of the abandoned store fronts and the needed investment in the Ward’s Corner area.  Why should our kids be challenged to learn in school buildings that collectively need over $800 million to rebuild or renovate? Our teachers, first responders and other city employees haven’t had reasonable raises in years.  And recent cuts in hours and dollars for our libraries, parks and recreations centers reflect the true impact that skewed priorities have had on the citizens who have funded Norfolk’s vibrant urban center.

Young families will continue to come to Norfolk if we can upgrade our aging housing stock, invest in our schools and grow the availability of our recreational activities.  I recognize the importance of an urban center, but it cannot be the only catalyst for bringing families to Norfolk.  If we do not start investing in our neighborhoods, we will lose families to the surrounding cities which is a step backward, and a detriment to the entire city.

We are beyond campaign rhetoric.  Hard work lies before us, and I am committed to the undertaking.  I invite all our citizens to join together and to work together to make our city a healthy, dynamic environment where we can all work, live and thrive.

Councilman Tommy Smigiel represents Ward 5 in Norfolk

One of the first posts I wrote on this blog was about the Dillon Rule. And if you search this blog, you’ll find that I often rail against it. I promised last week to open a thread where we could discuss it. From an editorial in today’s Virginian-Pilot:

The state’s rigid adherence to the Dillon Rule – which requires local governments to get permission from the legislature to do virtually anything, including such mundane matters as increasing dog and cat fees or pedestrian ordinances – prevents mayors and supervisors from finding ways to provide public services and end expensive duplication.

So I’m not alone in my dislike of Virginia’s interpretation of the Dillon Rule. While I recognize that there are benefits – primarily to businesses – I believe the costs outweigh them.

Your thoughts?

Back in the day, I directed a gospel choir at a local church. The biggest name in gospel music in those days was Walter Hawkins. In fact, Sunday morning in church, the guest minister invoked part of the lyrics from one of his hits, “Changed,” which you can hear here. (Had I been sitting at the piano instead of in a pew, I’d have started playing the song and getting the choir to sing it.)

The world of gospel music has lost a giant. RIP, Brother Hawkins. Guess you’re  “Going Up Yonder” to be with your Lord.

In an editorial Sunday, The Virginian-Pilot called for the recall of Portsmouth Mayor James Holley, who faces such an election for the second time Tuesday. In an op-ed a few pages later, writer Nathan McCall says the mayor should be allowed to finish the remaining two years of his term and then go quietly into the night. McCall’s basic argument is that the mayor is black and has done much for civil rights, and his removal “could complicate race relations for years to come.”

While I appreciate what Mayor Holley accomplished over the years, this recall election has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with whether the mayor is helping or hurting the city of Portsmouth. His fellow members of council – both black and white – voted unanimously to ask for his resignation. His former assistant, whose revelations prompted the vote, says that it is time for him to go. No one is denying that Holley helped race relations in Portsmouth in the past. But how much of a help is it when the mayor says there is a need for a “black” hotel? Is this 1964?

Yes, racism is alive and well in America. But we no longer fight the same battles today that we fought in the past. Today’s problems require a new set of skills – and a new group of leaders, both black and white. There is a lot more to be done. That cannot be accomplished when we cling to the notion that being black – no matter how incompetent – is enough.

The people of Portsmouth deserve better. Recalling Holley is a first step.

Sorry for the delay on this. Been a busy day around here.

What Chess Piece Are You?

As a Norfolk taxpayer and as a CPA, I found the following statement in this story troublesome:

McDonald said that city policy does not explicitly state appropriate and inappropriate use of its credit cards.

I obtained from the city a copy of the document that is required to be signed at the time the credit card is issued. That document (reproduced below) makes it quite clear that there are rules in place that cover credit cards; in fact, the document points the employee to the exact location of the Procurement Card Program Policies and Procedures on the city’s intranet and requires that the person obtaining the card agrees that s/he has read those procedures and be bound by them. The same document prohibits personal purchases and states that the City and external auditors “as well as Finance and Business Services may audit the use of the card.”

While I am still waiting for a copy of the Procurement Card Program Policies and Procedures, I was provided a copy of the city’s travel policy and a travel voucher (also reproduced below). The travel voucher requires receipts, which, according to the travel policy, must be provided for everything, unless the traveler is claiming the $30 per day for per diem. Expenses for alcohol will not be paid unless the city is the host.

Now I understand that Commissioner of the Revenue Sharon McDonald is not an employee of the city (which, of course, raises the question as to why she had a city credit card in the first place) but it seems to me that if she is using the city’s credit card, she should be bound by the same rules.

In any event, it appears that Norfolk does indeed have a credit card policy. Makes me feel better to know that.

UPDATE: Credit card policy is below the fold.

Before there was Arizona, there was Prince William County in Virginia. The documentary, “9500 Liberty,” chronicles the effects of immigration reform on that community. I provided my thoughts on the film after a local screening, but I’m not a professional film critic.  Roger Ebert is and he gives the film 3 1/2 stars in his review.

This film should be required viewing. Check out the film’s website for future screenings.

Former School Board member Alveta Green was appointed Thursday afternoon to the Superward 7 seat on Norfolk council. The seat became vacant due to the required relinquishment by Daun Hester, who challenged Paul Fraim for mayor. The rule dates back to a challenge made by former Ward 3 councilman Herbert Collins, who ran against Hester for the Superward 7 seat. Hester, who applied for the appointment, was not one of those who was interviewed. In addition to Green, the council interviewed Brenda Andrews and Jimmie Wilson.

New Journal & Guide owner and publisher Brenda Andrews was the first interviewee and the one most extensively interviewed by council in its public session. She expressed concern that Norfolk has been the subject of a number of articles printed in The Virginian-Pilot, saying that it is “almost as if there is a vendetta against the city.” She cited improving the public image of the city as one of the more pressing issues facing council, while acknowledging she did not know how to do so.  Andrews, who ran for the seat in 1992, said she would not pursue the seat in November’s special election.

Questions were raised about potential conflicts of interest that Andrews, should she be appointed, would need to resolve. One question related to how she would handle the closed council sessions. Andrews said such things would not be a part of her public service at the New Journal & Guide, adding that she considers it a matter of character, integrity and her word. The second question related to the paper’s coverage of the upcoming special election and of a council member endorsing someone. Andrews said that she would not write the endorsement editorial herself, but that someone at the paper would, if they felt it should happen. She reiterated that the purpose of the New Journal & Guide is to advocate on behalf of the African American community.

This line of questioning led to me believe – correctly, as it turns out – that council would not be appointing Andrews.

Alveta Green was the second interviewee. A Norfolk native, she mentioned that she has been involved in politics for about 50 years. Green gave probably the best answer of the three when questioned about the most significant challenges facing the city. She said it is how to continue the great services the city currently provides without getting more revenue. She also has no intention of running in the upcoming special election. Her priorities during this short-term appointment will be to continue what has already been started. In addition to having served on the School Board, Green was a teacher for 34 years. Saying that “the school system is still sound,” she suggested council should meet with the new superintendent.

The interview of Jimmie Wilson, the last of the day, was the shortest. Wilson, a former Norfolk State University administrator, has lived in Norfolk for about 40 years. He came out strongly, saying that council needs to communicate with the citizens, that the citizens believe their needs are not being addressed and that council is not responsive. Wilson saw this as the most significant challenge facing council, saying that it is “not open enough to let people know what’s going on.” If appointed, Wilson said he would listen to the citizens and try to meet their needs. When asked about his intention to run in November, Wilson said that he is looking into doing so.

All three of those interviewed were questioned about the issue of transparency, one of the biggest issues in the previous election. Interestingly enough, neither Andrews nor Green saw transparency as an issue. I’m guessing that neither of them was aware that it wasn’t until 2:40pm on Wednesday that council officially notified the public that Thursday’s interviews were taking place – a little more than 24 hours notice. This is just the most recent example of the lack of transparency coming from those who represent us. There was no notice at all of the council meeting held after the swearing in ceremony. Declaring that this was an “open meeting” after the fact doesn’t make it so. As I was in attendance at the swearing in (for which there also was no notice), it seems it would have been easy to let us know that a meeting was going to occur.

Transparency is, indeed, an issue, and I hope Councilwoman Green will recognize this and join with other members of council in trying to make council and its actions more open.

Congratulations to Councilwoman Green. My thanks to Mrs. Andrew and Mr. Wilson for being willing to serve.

The Hampton School Board has been in the news quite a bit lately. We have the board suing its former superintendent – and him counter-suing.

Then there’s the School Board attorney. Seems she is using a job offer from another school district to wrangle a new contract, not unusual by any means. What is unusual is that the board directed her to write her own contract! Seriously. Now, if you were writing your own contract, what would you ask for?

In this case, the attorney asked for – and received – a 15% contribution to a retirement annuity, worth a little over $15,000.  Instead of a new contract, this is an amendment to her old letter of employment, which previously included a 3.5% contribution. Oh yeah – and a $7,000 per year car allowance.

This is at a time when the school board just cut $25 million from its budget in March. Included in that budget was a pay cut of .8 percent, effective July 1, for district employees, including the attorney, and 1.6% for top administrators.  The attorney certainly more than made up for that, didn’t she?

I’m thinking I need a new graphic – the fleecing of Hampton.

I didn’t write the headline for my op-ed that appeared in Monday’s Virginian-Pilot but it was dead on.  Those who follow my blog already know that I firmly believe that all politics is local – and that we have a much better shot of affecting local politicians than we do any other.

I’ve received calls, emails, and text messages from people all over Southside Hampton Roads since the article appeared. None of them disagreed – which is a good thing Here’s a sampling of the responses I’ve received:

Well said, Vivian. Well said.

[...]

Your piece hit it right on the head.  It was not too wonkish and pointed out that streets lights and  garbage collection is important and impacts us more.

[...]

Your article “show up” was written to and for me. I plead guilty for failing to show up. My Dad who trusted you would be ashamed of me.

[...]

Thanks for the history lesson that the VP published today.. [I] was aware of bits and pieces of the history of voting in Va. and the Dillon rule but you filled in the blanks.

[...]

You did an excellent job telling the folks about the power of the electorate when they go to the polls.  As student of local government I concur with your comments about their authority and power. Most people do not realize this.

[...]

Very nice job!  They should get you to write columns more often.

I appreciate the feedback. And I hope to continue having my voice heard.

This song has been bouncing around in my head for quite some time. And while it’s been covered by almost everyone, the original by Nina Simone remains the best. Take a minute, close your eyes, and listen to the master.

Last week, I witnessed a new day in Norfolk. I was there when Councilman Tommy Smigiel was sworn in. The photo at right (click to enlarge) shows him receiving his certificate of election from Electoral Board member Donald Brown. The certificate is dated May 7, which just so happens to be my birthday. I couldn’t have been more proud of this young man, who carries the hopes of so many of us on his shoulders.

His is but one voice among the eight-member council, but an important one.  I am so looking forward to his service.  Tommy worked hard to win this race, and showed that it is possible, despite being outspent by more than 10-1, to be successful by doing so.

In November, we will have an opportunity to give him some help. And in two years, another opportunity. But for now, I’m just savoring the win.

In Norfolk, it’s a new dawn, it’s a new day. And I’m feeling good.

Annabel Candy has an interesting article about eight habits that highly effective bloggers need to develop.

1. Prolific.  Personally, I prefer quantity over quality. But if it is hits you’re after, writing a bunch of posts makes sense.
2. Concise. Well, if you’re going to be prolific, you have to be concise.
3. Analytical. I find it hard to be concise and analytical. One or the other, but not both.
4. Lifelong learners. Absolutely. But not just about blogging, but about the subjects you cover. There is always new information out there.
5. Focused and consistent. Yes, bloggers have to have some self-discipline; otherwise, your readers don’t know what to expect.
6. Plan ahead. Um, yeah, OK, sure.
7. Persistent. I guess this depends on your definition of success.
8. Self-starter. Kinda a repeat of #5, in my book.

Thousands of blogs are started every day. A whole lot of them disappear within the first 90 days. Obviously, one could adopt these habits and still not be considered successful, if the definition of success is measured by income earned.

Obviously, I’m not a “highly effective blogger,” at least not by the habits above. I write about what interests me. And so far, it’s working out A-OK

… I just hate to open the newspaper. Because I hate to see Norfolk in the headlines again, for something else that has been done wrong.

This time, it’s the Treasurer’s office. The problem: delinquent real estate tax collections.

The city has a huge backlog of seriously delinquent properties, due to lax collection practices and an outdated tax sale system.

Hundreds of homeowners and land owners haven’t paid property taxes in years – some in decades, leaving the city out of $13 million that could ease budget problems.

As of mid-April, Norfolk had more than 900 parcels with taxes at least three years overdue. Of those, almost 300 were 10 years past due. In comparison, Chesapeake had 34 properties on its 10-year list, and Portsmouth 14.

When Norfolk is behind Portsmouth, you know we’re in deep doo doo.

“The process we’ve been using is not the way to go anymore, perhaps,” said Wendy Petchel , the real estate supervisor in the city treasurer’s office. “It’s a procedure that was working in the beginning. Now we have to question whether this is working.”

Ya think?

The article lays out a quite convoluted process that none of the other Hampton Roads localities are using. They are being aggressive in collecting past due real estate taxes. After having culled their property rolls of worthless land, the other cities move quickly to sell properties. Not Norfolk.

The city moves to sell property from the list only after a potential buyer makes an offer, triggering a legal process that ends with a sale on the courthouse steps.

[...]

If no one expresses interest in the property, a parcel can sit dormant on the list for years as taxes continue to accrue.

It’s no wonder, then, that Norfolk has four times the number of properties sitting in limbo than any other city in Hampton Roads.

I tell you – it’s embarrassing to see this kind of stuff in the newspaper, day after day. It’s time for Norfolk to clean house, starting with the elimination of the offices of the Treasurer and the Commissioner of the Revenue. We already pay for a large portion of the operation of these offices, yet they fall under no one’s jurisdiction. Change the charter, eliminate these two offices, and bring the functions under the Department of Finance.

I have confirmed via various sources that three people will be interviewed Thursday for the council vacancy in Superward 7. Those three are Brenda Andrews, Alveta Green and Jimmie Wilson.

Andrews is the publisher of The New Journal & Guide, Virginia’s oldest black weekly newspaper. She ran for the seat several years ago. Green is a former member of the Norfolk School Board. Wilson is the former aide to Del. Algie Howell and ran in the primary for treasurer in 2005.

In a phone call this morning, Wilson confirmed that he intends to run for the seat in November’s special election. Mayor Paul Fraim has indicated that he prefers the person appointed agree not to run. It is unclear to me how many members of council agree with the mayor on this, so I don’t know if it will disqualify him from being appointed.

Interviews are scheduled for Thursday at 3pm.

Take about nine minutes of your day to review why we celebrate the 4th of July.

Judge Charles Poston entered an order this morning (see below) setting the date for the special election to fill the Superward 7 seat vacated by Daun Hester. The election has been set for November 2, the same day as the fall general election. As mentioned in this article, Del. Kenny Alexander and Councilman Paul Riddick are concerned about the date as they believe it will not pass Justice Department scrutiny.  I am told that this morning’s hearing only considered the mechanics of setting the date and not the possible Justice Department challenge. Further, I assume someone will be notifying the Justice Department and asking for a review.

So far, four names have surfaced as potential candidates: Donna Smith, head of the Southeastern Virginia Arts Association, who ran for the Ward 3 council seat in May; Earl Fraley, Jr., a member of the City Planning Commission; Jimmie Wilson, former candidate for Treasurer and former legislative aide to Del. Algie Howell; and Angelia Williams, a local realtor and former City of Norfolk employee.

Wilson has submitted his name to be appointed as the temporary replacement for the seat. I understand that he will withdraw from that if council holds firm on the decision to not appoint someone who plans to run. Council will interview the finalists – to be named early next week – for the temporary appointment Thursday at 3pm.

I spoke with four of the six seven members of council at yesterday’s swearing in ceremony regarding the appointment of Hester. Two would support her, two were adamantly against doing so.  I’m attempting to contact the other two three to see where they stand.

UPDATE: A third council member has committed to supporting Hester.  I will continue to work on this through the weekend.

UPDATE Saturday am: Hester will not be the appointee.

You Are 64% Open Minded

You are a very open minded person, but you’re also well grounded. Tolerant and flexible, you appreciate most lifestyles and viewpoints. But you also know where you stand firm, and you can draw that line. You’re open to considering every possibility – but in the end, you stand true to yourself.

How Open Minded Are You?