The Buck Stops Nowhere!

As I was surfing through the channels on my trusty Comcast cable last night I suddenly came upon the session of the Richmond City Council. Since there were commercials on the other channels any way, I decided to watch for a while. When it became too unbearable to watch, I shut off the television. That was about seven or eight minutes later.

The council was discussing a paper (councilese for a bill) that would authorize a study of whether the auditing functions of the city and Richmond Public Schools should be combined. I have lived in Richmond long enough to know that when the members of the council want to duck an issue they usually authorize a study. That way they can put off taking any action for a while or, if they are lucky, the issue might just go away.

Well, it soon became apparent to me that I had missed the highlight of the evening. It seems that some citizen had had the temerity during public comments to blame the council for the fiscal mismanagement in the city. As I joined the show, Council President Pantele was expressing his outrage at the offending taxpayer. Mr. Pantele made it clear that he thought the citizen had abused the public comment period by heaping scorn on the council. Mr. Pantele, who apparently does not agree with Harry Truman’s “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen,” stated that he was offended that any citizen could even think that the City Council was accountable for anything that goes on in the city.

Mr. Pantele was followed by Council Vice President McQuinn who joined the “no mea culpa” theme. Ms. McQuinn stated quite clearly that she would accept no responsibility for any fiscal mismanagement in the city. Since she had never written a check on behalf of the city or instructed any city employee to take any action, she clearly felt no need to acknowledge that all this maladministration had happened on her watch. Ms. McQuinn’s “see no evil, hear no evil” posture fits in quite nicely in River City.

Then Northside District councilperson Hilbert started talking. He spoke of some meaningful things, like the City Council’s oversight responsibility for all the operations of city government. He also expressed his opinion that the Wilder Administration had violated the terms of the council’s budget ordinances and that the council had a responsibility to expose the administration’s misdeeds.

It was at this time that Central District councilperson Jewell shouted out “Point of order, Mr. President.” Mr. Jewell, a staunch supporter of the mayor, felt that Mr. Hilbert’s discussion of oversight and accountability was not germane to the paper being considered by the council. President Pantele agreed and ruled Mr. Hilbert out of order. The only “relevant” part of the discussion was over. I pushed the OFF button on my remote in disgust.

So, citizens of Richmond, we have a mayor who goes around with a “What, Me Worry?” attitude. He can’t be blamed for any wrong that happens in the city because he denies any knowledge. We have a City Council whose members think they are not accountable or responsible for anything that goes on in the city. And we taxpayers just keep on paying the bills.

Dear reader, the next time you have nothing to do on a Monday night watch the Richmond City Council in action. It is obviously the best reality show in town.

Accountability and the Mayor

I am disappointed that the editors of the Times-Dispatch have approved of the double standard that is being applied to former Richmond director of emergency management Benjamin Johnson and Mayor Doug Wilder. As I pointed out yesterday, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Wilder each accepted from the city both a monthly car allowance and the use of a city-owned car, double perks to which they were not entitled. Mr. Johnson lost his job. Mr. Wilder gave the excuse that he didn’t know how much compensation he was receiving and, as of this morning, is still occupying the mayor’s office at City Hall. The TD editors justify the difference in outcomes in this language:

Indeed, if resignation defines the proper response to incidents of this nature, then a double standard becomes inevitable. A mayoral departure would send this city into crisis. Chief executives are usually held to different standards.

The TD editors conclude that the only check on a rogue chief executive’s disregard for the law is the ballot box.

The citizens of Richmond are entitled to accountability from all their elected and appointed city officials and employees. They have a right to expect that no public official is considered above the law. Yet, the TD is supporting Mr. Wilder’s behavior, which for three years has indicated that he thinks he is above the law, by indicating that chief executives should be held to different standards.

I have only one question. Why?

The TD suggests that the mayor’s resignation would “send this city into crisis.” Come on, guys. What kind of answer is that? Are you really suggesting that the citizens of Richmond must accept unethical, perhaps illegal, behavior from the mayor which they would not accept from any other city official? And, exactly what kind of crisis are you expecting? Would the James River stop flowing? Would all city owned buildings suddenly crumble? Would the police department stop enforcing the law? Would trash no longer be collected? Would the city’s public schools close down? Would those who rely on the city for support suddenly stop receiving city services?

Are you guys serious? Are you suggesting that it was wrong for the Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon because it might have sent the country into a crisis? Are you suggesting that it was wrong for the House of Representatives to impeach Bill Clinton because it might create a crisis? Do you really mean that our chief executives (presidents, governors and mayors) should be considered above the law?

The TD editors should realize that our City Charter provides for the removal of the mayor from office when his or her public behavior does not meet established standards. Section 304.1 of the charter states:

B. The mayor may be removed following the procedure set forth in § 24.2-233 of the Code of Virginia applicable to constitutional officers; provided, however, that the petition must be signed by a number of registered voters in each council district equal to at least 10 percent of the total number of votes cast in the last general election for mayor in each respective council district.

The standards for removal are set forth in section 24.2-233.1 of the Virginia Code as follows:

For neglect of duty, misuse of office, or incompetence in the performance of duties when that neglect of duty, misuse of office, or incompetence in the performance of duties has a material adverse effect upon the conduct of the office . . .

So, despite the dire consequences that the editors fear, the law does not provide that our mayor is above the law, and provides a mechanism (other than elections) for his/her removal. Further, the City Charter tells us how to deal with a vacancy in the office of mayor. Section 304.B sets out the procedure for electing a replacement mayor should the office become vacant.

As I pointed out yesterday, instilling an attitude of accountability in all our city officials and employees requires a zero-tolerance policy. And that attitude of accountability must start at the top. As citizens and taxpayers you and I have the right to expect that public money is being used efficiently and lawfully. When an officer or employee misuses public funds, we should expect that he or she will face the consequences of their actions.

There may be factual differences between the cases of Benjamin Johnson and Doug Wilder that would justify their being treated differently. However, if our government is to earn back the trust of its citizens we must apply the same standard to all public officials and employees. We cannot allow a different standard to be applied to our mayor.

Earning the Public’s Trust

In my April 4 post, Hey! That’s Our Money, I pointed out that the most recent audit of the operations of Richmond Public Schools has had a devastating effect on public support for our public schools. A letter to the editor from Richmonder Dorothy T. Edwards published in yesterday’s Times Dispatch supports my conclusion. Ms. Edwards’ letter indicates that she has lost all trust in our public officials to root out the “waste, inefficiency and nepotism” that plague the city’s operations. (Although Ms. Edwards’ letter specifically addresses the school audit, it is clear from her letter that it is mismanagement throughout city operations, not just in the schools, that concerns her.) To avoid you having to hit on any links, I will reprint Ms. Edwards’ letter in its entirety.

Editor, Times-Dispatch:
Your recent editorial about the Richmond school audit calls it "Obscene." What I would call the waste, inefficiency, and nepotism in the school system is "criminal."
I find it hard to believe that the city hasn't found some way to get rid of auditor Umesh Dalal. He seems to have an amazing amount of courage to run these audits and publish the truth of the corruption in our city and our school system. As a taxpayer, I thank him and hope he keeps up the good work.
Not that these major transgressions against the taxpaying citizens of Richmond, and especially the children, will get corrected -- because I don't believe they will. School Board Chairman George Braxton can assure us all he wants that he will hold the school administration accountable. In all the years I have lived in Richmond, I have heard so many promises, so many lies from our elected officials that I do not believe them anymore.
We have almost reached the point that we need a taxpayers' revolt. Perhaps if we withheld our tax payments like Mayor Doug Wilder withheld funds to the School Board, we might get somebody's attention at City Hall. Short of a revolt, I don't know what else we citizens can do until next Election Day.
I wish I could believe that just by changing officials we could clean up Richmond, but unfortunately, I don't know if there are any honest people left who would want to run this beautiful city by the James. The waste, inefficiency, and nepotism go very deep and will take a Herculean effort to dig out by the roots.
Dorothy T. Edwards. Richmond.

I wish I could tell you that Ms. Edwards’ letter was an anomaly, but I can’t. I think that her views are shared by far too many people in this city. More than three and a half years after we elected a mayor who pledged to clean up the corruption in city government, many city residents think that it’s still business as usual in River City.

Ms. Edwards says she has heard too many promises and just doesn’t believe public officials any more. That Ms. Edwards has come to this view is tragic. In our republic, public officials can only govern if they have the trust of the electorate. If people in this city feel that they can’t trust their elected and appointed officials, Richmond is in worse trouble than I thought.

Dear reader, how do our elected and appointed officials gain back the trust of our citizens? It seems clear from Ms. Edwards’ letter that words alone are not enough. I think that our officials must act (and do so quickly) to assure Richmond taxpayers that their money is being used lawfully and efficiently. Our officials must demand accountability from all public employees including themselves. Just as Richmond Public Schools has a zero-tolerance policy with respect to certain misbehavior by students, our city government (including the schools) must have a zero-tolerance policy for abuse of public trust. And this policy must apply to all public employees from the mayor on down.

In the future, we cannot tolerate a situation in which different standards are applied to the same behavior. For example, this week Mayor Wilder accepted the resignation of Benjamin Johnson, Richmond’s director of emergency management. Mr. Johnson resigned after a city audit revealed that he was receiving both a $500 per month car allowance and the use of a city owned vehicle. Under city ordinances, Johnson was entitled to one of these perks, not both. City Auditor Umesh Dalal had called for disciplinary action against Mr. Johnson for accepting both perks. It is unfortunate that the city lost the services of Mr. Johnson. However, when it comes to accountability we must have a zero-tolerance policy.

Or do we? It appears that our beloved mayor was also receiving both a monthly car allowance of $700 and the use of a city-owned car since 2005. Under city ordinances, the mayor was entitled to only one of these perks. When confronted with this fact, Mr. Wilder said that he was unaware that he had been receiving both perks. Mr. Wilder indicated his intent to reimburse the city for the car allowance he had been improperly receiving for three years. Mr. Wilder has not submitted his resignation.

Ms. Edwards might ask, “Maven, why were Mr. Johnson and Mayor Wilder subject to two different standards? Mr. Johnson lost his job, but the mayor only had to pay back the money he wrongly accepted.”

Dear reader, I was prepared to give Ms. Edwards one of my standard satiric answers. However, this situation simply is not funny. So instead I will address the last paragraph in Ms. Edwards’ letter.

Ms. Edwards, I do believe that there are honest people around who are willing to take on the responsibility of leading our fair city. Further, I don’t think that ridding this city of waste, inefficiency and nepotism is a task that only Hercules could perform. All we need are officials who demand accountability.

As for RPS, we need nine school board members who will inform the next school superintendent that s/he will be held strictly accountable for every penny of public money entrusted to the schools. Then we need a superintendent that informs all school system employees that they will be held strictly accountable for every cent of public money they administer.

On the City Hall side, we need nine council persons who will inform the next mayor that s/he will be held strictly accountable for every penny of public money appropriated to run the city government. We need a mayor who will inform his/her staff and all city employees that they will be held strictly accountable for every cent of public money they administer.

Our policy must be one of zero tolerance. If you misuse public funds you will be required to pay them back and you will lose your job. It’s as simple as that. We cannot accept as an excuse, “I didn’t know.” As a public official it is your job to know.

Hopefully, through their actions our city leaders can gain back Ms. Edwards’ trust. Ms. Edwards and all the taxpayers of River City are entitled to leaders who will treat their public trust seriously. They are entitled to know that every penny they pay to the city in taxes will be spent honestly and efficiently.