OMG, Is It Doug?

I’m sitting in the den, minding my own business, watching the evening news, when I see that face and I hear that voice. My blood pressure starts to rise. My mouth starts to salivate. Is this a dream? Can it be real? Yes, it is! It’s Doug Wilder on the tube threatening to support Bob McDonnell, the Republican, for governor. There is even some speculation that Doug is going to become a Republican. Wow!

Okay, I need to calm down. I can’t allow myself to get obsessed about Doug again. I know that for more than two years Doug provided tons of material for this maven. I know that since Doug has dropped out of the public lime light my writing production has gone way down. With Doug back, this maven could soar again to his great levels of sarcasm and invective.

No! I will not allow Doug Wilder to draw me down that path again. I realize that I am a Doug Wilder addict. So, I can’t even allow myself to think about Doug. Let him do what he wants. This maven will just ignore him.

To the Republicans I anglicize an old Yiddish curse that my grandmother used to use—a plague on you! May Doug bring you all the grief that he brought to the citizens of River City!

Mayor Wilder

Mayor Wilder has finally seen the pink slip I sent him1 and has announced that he will give up City Hall at the end of his term. On the Times-Dispatch website there were tons of emails from readers either condemning Mr. Wilder or praising him. This maven will not join the crowds.

I praise Mr. Wilder for his decision. I know it wasn’t easy for him. I also praise Mr. Wilder for his accomplishments while mayor. I wish him the best in his remaining months as our chief executive. I also wish him the best in his re-retirement.

Let’s get on with picking his successor.

Please Help Me Here

Although I have lived in Virginia more than two-thirds of my life, and when people ask me where I’m from I’m proud to say I’m from Virginia, I am still disabled by the early years I spent in Yankee-land. So, there are times when I just can’t understand what I read in my morning Times-Dispatch. You who are regular readers of the Maven know that I have had this difficulty before. So, you’re probably not surprised when I say that I have no idea what the TD editorial “Dinner Guests” means. In case you missed it—

Del. Dwight Jones has announced his candidacy for election as Richmond's mayor. Doug Wilder responded to the news with a statement:
"I have seen nothing as of yet that would influence my plans, nor do I see an earnest commitment to continue the positive change we have already begun."
When Deborah Jewell-Sherman announced she will retire as superintendent of Richmond's schools, Wilder said:
"Suffice it to say that Dr. Jewell-Sherman has brought improvement to the academics of the school system since taking the job and she has received ample credit for that."
A dream dinner would be to sit between Wilder and . . . Winston Churchill -- and across from Alice Roosevelt.

Really, trusted reader, that’s all there is to it. Now, the version in the print edition differs from the cyber version in being prefixed by “Two Masters,” so that could be a clue to the ethereal thinking of our TD editors.

I often think that the editors of the TD are mired in the Twentieth Century in their philosophy. But to talk about Winston Churchill and Alice Roosevelt convinces me that they haven’t even made it to the 1960s. Most of us know about Mr. Churchill. I think I even remember him. Alice Roosevelt, however, is not a name that rolls off the tongue very frequently these days. As a great admirer of our twenty sixth president, I know that Alice was the daughter of Teddy Roosevelt’s short and tragic marriage to Alice Lee. I know that she was an outspoken teenager when her father was president and, after she married Congressman Nicholas Longworth, she became a fixture on the Washington, DC, social circuit.

So, let’s go back to “Dinner Guests.” The two quotes from His Mayorship are typical Doug. They certainly don’t compare with anything that ever came out of the mouth or pen of Winston Churchill, who was one of the finest speakers, writers and statesman of the last century. In using the preliminary “Two Masters,” can the editors possibly be comparing the mayor with Mr. Churchill? Can they be so deluded as to think that they can even use the names Douglas Wilder and Winston Churchill in the same breath? Nothing has ever crossed the mind of Doug Wilder that can compare with Mr. Churchill’s “We shall never surrender,” or “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few,” or “This was their finest hour.” I think that if Doug and Winston had ever been at the same dinner table it is highly unlikely that the mayor would ever get to speak and if he did I’m sure Mr. Churchill would slash him mercilessly with his repartee. After a few minutes it would be a really dull dinner.

So, maybe the two masters are the Doug and Alice. I have done a bit of research on things that Alice Roosevelt said. Here are her best quotes:
“I have a simple philosophy. Empty what’s full. Fill what’s empty. Scratch where it itches;” “Harding was not a bad man, he was just a slob;” [Coolidge] looks as though he was weaned on a pickle;” and “If you can’t say anything nice about someone, sit right here by me.” So maybe Doug is a little closer to Alice than to Winston. But, at least Alice was funny. Doug is just a grumpy old man.

I don’t understand the TD. During Mr. Wilder’s tenure as mayor, no matter how outrageous have been his actions or his words, the TD editors can see no evil. They always explain Doug by saying that there is plenty of blame to go around, or that “the people wanted a strong mayor.” The TD editors are always looking at Doug through the rosiest of glasses. As a man much wiser than this maven once said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time. But the Times Dispatch . . .”

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.

You Gotta Be Kidding!

According to Style Weekly’s Chris Dovi, the litigation between the City Council and Mayor Wilder over whether the mayor may disregard ordinances enacted by council and may fire council employees has cost us taxpayers $883,445.53 in legal fees, so far.

Take a few seconds to let that sink in. . . . . .

Our elected leaders, who are currently arguing over whether the city government can afford to grant us a one or two cent decrease in real estate rates, are perfectly willing to squander our money on this ridiculous litigation. Are these the people we have elected to run our fair city? Have they no concern for our money?

Undoubtedly, they will be coming to us in a few months asking us to reelect them, or elect them to a higher office, arguing that they have done a wonderful job husbanding our funds. Give me a break!

Money is Tight?

I sit with two Times-Dispatch articles in front of me and I am a bit perplexed. Dear reader, this is not a case of my aged brain failing me. Rather, it is words and actions by the leaders of our beloved city that simply make no sense. I look at the TD front page headline of March 2, 2008, and read “Top Wilder aides’ pay up 13-20%.” (http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news/sunday.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-03-02-0173.html) Then I look at the headline in today’s Metro section and read “Wilder’s Budget: ‘Money is tight’.” (http://www.inrich.com/content/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-03-07-0135.html.) Now, friend, even without reading these articles, you’ve got to admit that there is a breach in logic in these two stories. How can our CEO (Doug Wilder) claim that money is tight when his CAO (Sheila Hill-Christian) approves pay increases of 19 percent for Richmond CFO Harry Black, 18 percent for deputy CAO Saphira Baker, 17 percent for chief of staff Sandra Robinson, 16 percent for director of community development Rachel Flynn and 13 percent for Budget Director Raylord Harris? It seems to me this is a clear case of talking the talk but not walking the walk by the Wilder Administration. If money is so tight, why is it that the top executives of Richmond continue to prosper?

Today’s TD article quotes Mayor Doug as saying,

"Money is tight. Those who want to act as if the city coffers are full and growth is robust or will rebound quickly are deluding both themselves and the residents of Richmond."

Mr. Wilder has responded to the money crisis by limiting the increase in city spending to three percent. He also opposed cutting the real estate tax rate, calling any City Council attempt to cut that rate “a disingenuous election-year shell game.”

To prove that he is serious about keeping city spending under control, Doug proposed increases of 30% for his press secretary’s office, 17 percent for the CAO’s office, 15 percent for city procurement, 13 percent for the budget office, 10 percent for the finance office and 9 percent for his own office. To be fair, I must point out that he also proposed a 12 percent increase for the City Council chief of staff’s office (“throw the dog a bone”). To demonstrate that everybody in his administration must bear the suffering, Doug’s budget restricts pay increases for the city’s grunts to three percent.

Citizens of Richmond, something foul is going on here. It’s not just that Mr. Wilder’s budget does not match his rhetoric. What’s foul is that more than three years after we voted overwhelmingly for cleaning up the mess at City Hall we still have city leaders who have no concept of accountability for public money. The mayor, through his agent Ms. Hill-Christian, sees nothing wrong with awarding huge pay increases to top administrators while the average city worker is held to an increase of only three percent. What is worse is that the City Council has allowed the perpetuation of a system in which the mayor has the authority to make such arbitrary salary decisions.

The most shocking of Doug’s budgetary proposals is a 24% cut in funding for the city auditor. For our mayor to advocate such a cut is akin to the fox advocating extracting the teeth of the henhouse watchdog. (Put your gun away, Your Excellency, I am not accusing you of being a criminal). Auditing the operations of government is one of the guarantees we citizens have that our tax dollars are being properly spent. The keys to assuring accountability in our public servants are to remove temptation by strictly controlling how money is spent and for everybody to know that they are being watched. Recent reports by the city auditor indicate that there are inadequate controls in many of the city’s operations. Mayor Doug’s proposal to cut funding for the auditor’s office would, if accepted by City Council, convey to city employees the belief that nobody is reviewing their actions. I am not suggesting that public employees are a dishonest bunch. However, even though I trust my neighbors, I’m still gonna lock my front door at night.

Don’t think that I am limiting my criticisms to the Wilder Administration. There is plenty of blame to be borne by our valiant knights on the City Council. I have to agree with the mayor that all this talk of a cut in the tax rate is related to the upcoming election. Many of our council people have accomplished little during their terms and want to at least be able to claim that they have cut the tax rate. When I receive a report from my council representative (paid for I assume by my tax dollars) bragging about cutting the tax rate I have to wonder. Do these nine people really think we don’t know that we pay far more in real estate taxes than do any of our suburban neighbors? Last year I asked why we in Richmond pay so much more for government than do the people on the other side of the city’s meandering borders. (http://jamesrivermaven.blogspot.com/2007/07/why-do-we-pay-more-in-richmond.html) I have never received an answer.

Another failing of the City Council is that it has not legislated systemic changes in city operations that would provide more controls on wasteful spending. Being our legislature, the council is not only responsible for passing ordinances. It is also responsible for oversight of city operations. If the City Council is serious about controlling wasteful spending it needs to sift through every page of the mayor’s budget and demand justification for every penny Doug intends to spend.

I have saved for last my views on the part of the budget dealing with Richmond Public Schools. The TD article this morning indicated that the mayor proposed to increase funding for the schools, “the biggest portion of the budget,” by 0.6% to a total of $161 million. First we need to look at the figures. The $161 million mentioned includes about $28.5 million in state sales tax money that the city receives for the schools. For reasons not clear to me, the city counts the money it receives from the state as revenue when it arrives and as expenditure when it is transferred to RPS. Since these funds are merely a pass-through, it makes no sense to me to consider them as a payment from the city. In fact, the city’s payment for public schools is only $132.5 million. This means that funding for schools is not “the biggest portion of the budget.” That honor goes to “Safety and Judiciary.” It also means that city spending for schools is not increasing by 0.6% but by only 0.4%. The fact is that city spending for schools will have increased by only about $500,000 over the three fiscal years 2007, 2008 and 2009, if the mayor’s budget proposal is improved. That $500,000 increase is about the same as the total salary increases received by our top city officials. In a city in which the perceived quality of public education, and the resulting exodus of our middle class, is an issue of critical importance, the mayor continues to show that he is out of touch with our real needs. If the City Council goes along with this miniscule increase in school funding, it will demonstrate that its members too don’t represent the true interests of Richmond’s residents.

Doug, Put Your Gun Away

Before I get to the point, let me first say that I am removing City Council member Ellen F. Robertson from my short/long list of possible candidates to succeed Mayor Doug. Ms. Robertson is quoted in this week’s Style Weekly as saying, ““We shouldn’t be hiring criminals to run this city,” and then made it clear that she was referring to Richmond Chief Administrative Officer Sheila Hill-Christian. (http://www.styleweekly.com/article.asp?idarticle=16447)
Whether she misunderstood the question posed by Style Weekly reporter Chris Dovi, as she claims, or was given four opportunities to change her statement, as indicated by Style editor Jason Roop, Ms. Robertson’s failure to consider the consequence of her words indicates that she is not ready to captain our fair city.

This gets me to the words of another “potential” candidate in November’s mayoral election. As quoted in the Times-Dispatch this morning, Mayor Doug used these words to describe what he intends to do to defend Ms. Hill-Christian:

"Will we do something? You better bet it. I don't believe in pulling out a pistol to tell you I'm going to shoot you. I believe differently. I believe in shooting you if that's going to have to be the case. I don't have to pull it out and show it to you. So whatever we will do, we will do it."

http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-03-06-0191.html

Is this “one-gun-per-month” Doug that is talking about “shooting you” as a metaphor for a lawsuit? Doesn’t His Mayorship know that the Times-Dispatch is G rated and that there may be impressionable children reading his statement? There are far too many Richmonders dying of gunshot wounds for our CEO to use gun language loosely. When the mayor of our fair city states publicly that he believes in shooting people rather than merely threatening to do so, he has crossed the line. Mr. Wilder has demonstrated that he too fails to consider the consequences of his words and, like Ms. Robertson, is not the person we want leading our city.

Preparing Doug’s Pink Slip

In 2004, when we the citizens of this fair city hired Doug Wilder to be our mayor we made a mistake. Of course we read his resume thoroughly, we interviewed him many times, and we checked his references. We honestly believed that he was the person to steer our city in the right direction. After more than three years on the job, however, it has become clear that Doug Wilder simply is not the mayor we thought he would be.

When we hired Doug, we thought we were filling the mayoral vacancy with a man who would lead our fair city by working in cooperation with the other parts of our government. Unfortunately, the past three years have demonstrated that Doug just can’t get along with others. Doug’s insistence that things in the city must be done his way has involved him in endless disputes with the City Council and its members, the School Board and its members, the Superintendent of Schools, the City Assessor and the City Auditor. Some of these disputes were merely inconveniences; others have resulted in this city being the subject of national ridicule and scorn.

Doug has had the same difficulty getting along with people and organizations outside the city government. He has antagonized leaders in surrounding jurisdictions by his attitude. He has forced his will on the Richmond Performing Arts Foundation. His insistence that things be done his way led to the Atlanta Braves moving their AAA baseball team out of Richmond.

Partly because of his attitude, Doug has not provided the city with the leadership we thought he would. By engaging in extended turf battles with the City Council and School Board, some of which have resulted in law suits, he has caused the leadership in the city to be pulling in different directions. Instead of seeking agreement with members of the City Council and School Board, and with officials who are not in his chain of command at City Hall, he has insisted that they must submit to his will. Naturally they have resented his patronizing attitude and have resisted doing as he demanded. The result has often been stalemate rather than progress for the city.

Aside from his lack of leadership and uncooperative attitude, Doug has failed to carry out his pledge to eliminate corruption and mismanagement in city government. Audits by the City Auditor reveal that large amounts of public money are still being wasted and stolen. Further last week’s report in the Richmond Times-Dispatch shows that Richmond spends more per resident on administrative overhead each year then do all but a few other jurisdictions in Virginia. Not surprisingly, our residents bear the tenth highest burden in taxes and fees in the entire Commonwealth, considerably higher than that paid by residents in all the surrounding jurisdictions. (See my post “Why do we pay more in Richmond?”-- http://jamesrivermaven.blogspot.com/2007/07/why-do-we-pay-more-in-richmond.html )

When confronted with this information, City CFO Harry Black, who speaks for Doug on matters of money stated, “A lot of this stuff we inherited.” This would be an adequate defense if this were 2005 or 2006. However, after more than three years on the job, it is no longer acceptable to blame things on your predecessors.

Doug himself hints that it may take more than the time remaining in his current contract to finish his financial cleanup. As he stated at his Tuesday press conference,

“I want to tighten up on people and on processes. That takes time. A lot of it has to do with directors. A lot of it has to do with people in charge.”

The mayor didn’t explain why he has not done any of this tightening in the three years since he started his job. He also did not explain why he has been unable to find the right “people in charge” to fix the city’s finances between 2005 and 2008. He seemed to hint, however, that he may need to have his contract extended to get the job done.

Although Doug is lacking in the areas of leadership and ability to work with others, and he has failed to clean up city finances as he promised, we must recognize his accomplishments. The crime rate has gone down since Doug started the job. Doug’s role in reducing the crime rate was to choose an exemplary police chief (Rodney Monroe), give him public support, make sure the police department was adequately funded, and then step aside and let Chief Monroe do his job. It is unfortunate that Doug did not learn from this experience and apply this approach in other city operations.

For the reasons explained above, the City of Richmond cannot afford to retain Doug Wilder as its mayor. Four more years of Doug’s lack of leadership and inability to work with others could be disastrous for the city and its residents. There are far too many critical issues facing the city in the upcoming year. Based on his performance until now, it is clear Doug is not up to handling them. We need to replace Doug with a person who can get the job done.

Thanks for Explaining, Harry

After reading the story in this morning’s Times-Dispatch about the high cost of running the City of Richmond, I was going to award CFO Harry Black a chutzpah award. http://www.inrich.com/content/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-02-17-0215.html In his article, TD reporter David Ress indicated that

[t]here's more City Hall administrative overhead spending per resident in Richmond than anywhere else in the state outside high-salary Northern Virginia and a couple of tiny localities.

In response, Harry Black stated “A lot of this stuff we inherited.” Since the Wilder Administration has been in office for more than three years I thought it took a lot of chutzpah for Harry to blame the mess at City Hall on prior administrations. One would think that three years would be sufficient time for Doug Wilder and Harry Black to eliminate all that waste in city government that existed when they took office.

But, dear reader, after I thought about Harry’s comment for a while, I realized that he really does not deserve the award. You see, he was not trying to redirect blame. What Harry Black clarified with his statement is that when candidate Doug Wilder promised that if elected mayor he would clean up the “cesspool” in city government, he didn’t necessarily mean he would do it in his first term.

To Serve and Protect Gotham

In October, when the maveness and I attended James Taylor’s concert benefiting Genworth Children’s Advantage Classic, I noticed that Uncle Doug, our beloved mayor, was talking intimately with Metro Richmond’s finest citizens. From my vantage point, about a dozen rows above the floor at the Siegel Center, I kept an eye on Mr. Wilder for about ten minutes until the houselights were dimmed and James Taylor walked on stage. From then on this maven was totally blown away by Taylor’s performance. I did notice, however, that after only two or three songs, Doug Wilder got up from his seat and left the arena. At the time I wondered why our mayor would leave such a delightful concert. I speculated that perhaps Doug’s chauffeur had another engagement, or that it was a long drive back to Mr. Wilder’s James River ranch, or, even more likely, that Uncle Doug, being part of the ever growing senior population, was growing tired after a tough day. (You who are still under sixty wouldn’t understand.)

Well, dear reader, after reading a letter in the Times-Dispatch this morning (February 13), I find that I must extend my apologies to Uncle Doug. I now know that he left the arena to carry on the city’s business. The letter, which the TD entitled “Reader Has Total Faith In Mayor,” indicated that the

“No. 1 thing that Richmonders were screaming for was the reduction of crime. He has delivered on that.”

All this time, this doubting maven has been thinking that the reduction in crime in the city was attributable to the marvelous job being done by Police Chief Rodney Monroe and his fine officers. I was clearly wrong. Now I know it was . . .

BAT DOUG

It’s a cold December night in Gotham Richmond. Suddenly all of downtown is lit up by glaring lights. They say it’s the Grand Illumination, but it is really the Doug Signal that is lighting up downtown. Nearby, two thugs have just finished robbing a branch of Bank of America. As they emerge and run toward their getaway car, two caped figures drop on ropes from the Dougcopter hovering over the city. It is the dynamic duo of Bat Doug and his faithful sidekick Robin Black. With a POW and a SWAT Bat Doug and Robin B put the thugs down. Two more criminals are gone from Richmond. Bat Doug triumphs again over the forces of evil!

But, Maven, you ask. What about Rodney Monroe? Why is it that the press and the media give him all the credit for reducing crime in River City?

Dear reader, you must know that all super heroes must protect their identities. The Rodney Monroe that you see in the papers or on TV is really just a manikin. It is Bat Doug that is cleaning up the city. “Rodney” is just a cover for our caped crusader.

The writer of our letter goes on:

“The amazing thing to me is that nobody gives the mayor credit for the fraud he has uncovered. His uncovering of the gasoline fraud was worth $400,000—and that’s just what we know about.”

Again this maven and the press and the media were wrong. We thought all this fraud was revealed by City Auditor Umesh V. Dalal and his minions of bean counters. But it was really our super hero. . .

SPIDER DOUG

In broad daylight, two city workers are driving a personal car to D.C. to take in the Nationals game. (No minor leaguers these two!) They stop on Brook Road to fuel up the car before getting on I-95. The driver uses his Richmond City gasoline card to pay for the purchase. Suddenly from out of nowhere a red and blue flash streaks across the sky. Sticky webbing shoots down and ensnares the two frauders. Spider Doug swings down on his own web and snatches up the villains. The nine members of the City Council look on in disbelief. For years they have been trying to track down the gasoline fraud, without success. Only the truly heroic Spider Doug was up to the task and was able to stop this fraud.

But maven, you ask. What about Mr. Dalal and his band of auditing brothers? Didn’t he write the audit report that revealed the gasoline fraud?

Faithful reader, again you have been tricked by our hero’s perfect charade. Umesh Dalal and all those auditors are, you guessed it, manikins. It is Spider Doug and only Spider Doug who has laid these miscreants low.

So, citizens of Greatest Richmond, you can sleep tonight feeling safe. Have no fear. . . Doug is here.

Doug, the Hypocrite

“I’m asking for accountability. I’m asking for you to show me, as a taxpayer, how you can save some money before you ask for more.”
L. Douglas Wilder at School Board meeting February 4, 2008

For more than three years River City’s beloved chief executive has been lambasting the School Board and Superintendent Deborah Jewell-Sherman for failing to eliminate wasteful spending in Richmond Public Schools. He has withheld funding and he has insisted on no-growth budgets (which with rising costs really amounts to cuts.) He constantly waves around last year’s audit of RPS insisting that the Board and Superintendent are wasting twenty million dollars every year.

Well, it appears to me that the mayor doth protest too much. All of his noise about how badly the schools are administered is just a smokescreen to hide his own failure to fix the mess at City Hall. Citizens of Richmond might remember that His Excellency ran for mayor promising to clean up the “cesspool” of waste and corruption in our government. Yet, based on audit reports of his own Administration, it seems that Mr. Wilder talks the talk but doesn’t walk the walk with regard to wasteful and illegal government spending. Millions of dollars are wasted at City Hall and all the mayor can do is put on his charming smile and ask for accountability by RPS.

Having spent most of my professional career examining the spending of public funds, I have learned that government accountability must begin at the top. If the head of an agency does not show, both in words and actions, that s/he insists on the lawful and efficient use of taxpayer money, it’s just not gonna happen. I have seen far too many public officials forget that the money they administer belongs to the taxpayers and that they cannot use it any way they want.

Considering how Mr. Wilder has acted, it is no wonder that people in his administration treat public money as their own. He has set the example by ignoring the law to accomplish his objectives--

Last year, because the audit of Richmond Public Schools by the city auditor didn’t show as much fraud, waste and abuse as the mayor wanted, he entered into an illegal “emergency” contract to audit RPS. Clearly, auditing RPS did not qualify as an “emergency” under the city’s procurement laws. Further, the contract was made using funds that the City Council had appropriated for a different purpose.

Mr. Wilder also directed that funds that were appropriated for Richmond Public Schools be withheld until the School Board bowed down to his demands for a second school audit. The mayor had no authority to withhold funds from RPS and his action usurped the School Board’s statutory responsibility to “manage and control the funds made available to the school board for public schools.” Code of Virginia, section 22.2-89. (The court decision on this issue did not establish that the mayor had such authority. The court ruled only that the School Board had failed to demonstrate that the mayor’s action caused them irreparable injury.)

The mayor also ordered the after-business removal of RPS’s administrative offices from City Hall, costing the city tons of money. Mr. Wilder ignored the fact that the funds that he used to effectuate the move were appropriated for another purpose. Mr. Wilder also ignored the basic rights of Richmond citizens by directing that they not be admitted to City Hall to attend a School Board meeting held the night of the move. It took the intervention of the courts to prevent the completion of the eviction.

Besides his unlawful actions, the mayor has used his bully pulpit to deceive the citizenry into believing that they pay higher taxes because of RPS’s wasteful spending. In speeches and in his vision newsletter last year Mr. Wilder tried to stir up the public’s wrath against the School Board by claiming that increased real estate assessments were the direct result of wasteful spending in the schools. Aside from the fact that real estate assessments are based on the housing market and have nothing to do with the level of city spending, the mayor ignored the fact that he has frozen school spending. Information I got from the city’s website shows that although total city spending is going up, spending for our schools is constant.


Fiscal Year.....City Spending.........School Spending
2007...............$617.6 million........$161.3 million
2008..............$639.2 million........$160 million
2009..............$654.1 million.........$161.6 million

So, if we in the City of Richmond are paying more taxes than we did when Mr. Wilder took office, it sure isn’t school spending that is the problem.

Mr. Wilder, as a citizen and taxpayer, "I am asking for accountability" by you and your administration. I am demanding that you "show me how you can save some money" before you ask me for more and more. Mr. Mayor, since you obviously are unable to curb wasteful and unlawful spending in your own administration, I suggest you stop throwing stones at the School Board and Dr. Jewell-Sherman.

Braves Choose the Highway

Every time I went to a Brave’s game at the Diamond I would chuckle when the announcer introduced “your Richmond Braves.” It was always very clear to me that the team was not ours but Atlanta’s. Now, the Atlanta Braves organization has made it very clear that the Braves were only on loan.

What I find rather amusing is the shock shown by those who pass for leadership in our fair metropolitan area. Considering how they have treated the Braves over the last three years, should they have been surprised? Let us not forget that one of the first targets of L. Douglas Wilder’s “I am the boss” approach to government was the Braves. When the Braves’ organization let it be known that they needed a new stadium, Mr. Wilder made it clear that any new stadium could be built only on his terms. He tugged the Braves from Shockoe Bottom to Fulton then back to North Boulevard. Throughout, Mr. Wilder’s attitude was “my way or the highway.” Well, after putting up with our mayor's antics for three years the Braves have chosen—it’s the highway.

Although we are losing the Braves, we Richmond baseball fans need not worry. As pointed out by our beloved mayor, “One thing’s certain. Richmond will have baseball.” I assume the mayor was referring to the Washington Nationals games on Comcast.

Would George III Be A Strong Enough Mayor?

I went to the website of the Pulitzer Prize to make sure. Yes, the 1948 prize for “distinguished editorial writing” was awarded to TD Editor Virginius Dabney, not to the Richmond Times-Dispatch itself. So, I guess the Pulitzer committee cannot retroactively rescind the award based on the current quality of TD editorials.

What, you may ask, led me to check out the Pulitzer thing? I had just finished reading today’s (December 20, 2007) lead editorial “Charter Member,” http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/opinion/editorials/more.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2007-12-20-0055.html, and I was baffled. Not that I think that today’s editorial was the worst I have read. Since I came to live in River City in 2004, I have read many TD editorials that have left me wondering whether it was me or the editors who had lost the power of reason. By comparison, today’s editorial was not that bad.

As were many Richmond citizens, the TD editorial was discussing our beloved mayor’s Tuesday speech to the Crusade for Voters. As I noted yesterday, Mr. Wilder’s remarks indicate that he is getting back into his imperial aggressive mode after a couple of months of playing mild-mannered Uncle Doug. The TD used His Excellency’s remarks to raise its repeated assertion that our city charter does not give to the mayor as much power as we the people wanted our mayor to have. In the words of the editorial,

“This summer many Richmonders learned the mayor's office was not so powerful as they may have suspected. The city has a strong personality in a relatively weak position.”

Excuse me, Mr. Editor. Are you saying that we Richmonders want a mayor who has the authority to ignore the law? Does the ruling by the District Court that Mr. Wilder cannot disregard an ordinance passed by City Council indicate that the office of mayor of Richmond is a weak position? The President of the United States governs subject to restrictions placed upon the position by the Constitution and laws enacted by the Congress. The Governor of Virginia rules subject to the Commonwealth’s constitution and the laws enacted by the General Assembly. Are you suggesting that the presidency and the governorship are weak positions?

The editorial goes on to say,

"Maybe it [Richmond’s citizenry] did not want a mayor who would have an impact on Richmond similar to the impact celebrated mayors such as Rudy Giuliani have had on the cities they are credited with reviving."

We need not examine Mr. Giuliani’s performance as mayor of New York City. There is plenty of time to do that should he win the presidential nomination of the Republican Party. I need to point out, however, that through no fault of my own I grew up in New York City and I know for a fact that mayors of the Big Apple govern subject to the constitution of the State of New York and also to laws enacted by the New York legislature and ordinances enacted by the City Council of New York City. If Mr. Giuliani did “revive” New York City, he did not do it by asserting that the law did not apply to him.

We citizens do desire a mayor and City Council that will work together to make Richmond the great city it can be. However, we do not want, nor did we intend to elect, a tyrant who claims powers we have denied to our executives since 1776.

As I indicated in my October 26 post, “It Ain’t Broke, It’s Just Badly Bent,” our city charter divides power between a legislature (the City Council) and an executive (the mayor). This is the model of government that has worked very well for us for over two hundred years. The division of power keeps both the executive and the legislative branches from gaining dictatorial powers.

The penultimate paragraph of the editorial is the strangest. It explains Mr. Wilder’s expressed intention to abandon his attempts to have the charter revised to “clarify” his power. In the words of the editorial,

"Wilder's decision regarding the charter reflects political reality, alas. The city's legislative delegation did not figure to be helpful; the Assembly would have been unlikely to embrace reforms that lacked the enthusiastic backing of senior Richmond legislators. This season suggests the aptness of one of the late Henry Howell's favorite aphorisms: There's more than Santa Claus running around in the dark."

That the editor quoted Henry Howell is strange enough. Considering its editorial policy, I don’t suppose the TD had much use for Mr. Howell when he was alive. But what is the editor driving at? What’s this stuff about Santa running around in the dark? If we look at what old Howlin’ Henry actually said, the editor’s meaning becomes clearer. Mr. Howell’s adage was “There's more going around in the dark than Santa Claus, and hanky-panky is its name! “ When read with the complete quote from Howell, it becomes clear that the editor is accusing the Richmond area’s General Assembly representatives of conspiring to keep the mayor from achieving the greater powers that he somehow deserves. If, in fact, our local delegates and senators oppose Mr. Wilder’s attempt to rewrite the charter in his image they deserve our gratitude. Rather than hanky-panky, they are merely responding to the Commonwealth’s motto, “Sic Semper Tyrannis.”

Doug Wilder: Jekyll or Hyde

Watching Doug Wilder is so interesting because you never know which Wilder you’re going to get. Will it be the mild mannered benevolent Uncle Doug, who we all love? Or will it be the nasty dictatorial His Excellency, who drives many of us up the wall?

For a while, since the disastrous Friday night invasion of Richmond Public School offices, Mr. Wilder has been in the Uncle Doug mode. He appears to be nice to everybody. He schedules all these photo ops that show him smiling and shaking hands. He makes a brilliant appointment (Sheila Hill-Christian) for Chief Administrative Officer, replacing Harry Black who the City Council refused to confirm. He seems so anxious to let bygones be bygones and work productively with the City Council. However, based on Michael Martz’s front page article in today’s TD, it appears that Uncle Doug is on the way out and His Excellency is coming back.

In his article (http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2007-12-19-0188.html), Mr. Martz points out that Mr. Wilder is no longer interested in working peacefully with City Council. Mr. Martz quotes Mr. Wilder as saying,
“I’ve extended all the olive branches I intend to extend. . . I’ve been told I’m supposed to be conciliatory—you’ve seen all you’re going to see of me being conciliatory.”
To prove his point, according to Mr. Martz, the mayor accused the City Council of turning back the clock on black political representation. He noted that the black majority on the council had been replaced by a white majority. Although Mr. Wilder found “nothing wrong” with a white majority, he accused the council of “turning back the clock” because the council’s only black male has a vote on only one council committee. (It’s appropriate that Mr. Wilder did not object to the white majority since he supported a white candidate running against a black incumbent in last year’s election). Martz’s article indicates that the mayor’s comments were aimed at City Council President Bill Pantele.

Am I mistaken, or is His Excellency the Mayor rolling out the race card in his renewed battle against the council? Those of you who were watching Mr. Wilder’s 1985 run for Lieutenant Governor or read “When Hell Freezes Over"(which tells the story of how a boy from Brooklyn was able to get a state senator from Richmond elected as the Commonwealth’s first African American Lieutenant Governor), know that the race issue is not new for Mr. Wilder. In the 1985 campaign Mr. Wilder frequently used his race and the accusation of racism to blunt attacks on him for having been disciplined by the Virginia Bar or for acting like a slum lord with respect to his rental properties in River City. No matter what issues were raised against him in that campaign, Mr. Wilder’s standard defense was that he was being accused only because he was black. By the end of the campaign, Mr. Wilder and his strategist Paul Goldman had convinced most Virginia voters that if they voted against him they would be perceived as racists. The result was that Doug Wilder won the election.

Can it be that His Mayorship is planning to run for reelection next year and is starting to use the race issue now just in case his opponent turns out be Mr. Pantele? Could Mr. Wilder be planning a campaign based on the entitlement of an African American majority in the city to an African American mayor? I would really hate to see this city suffering through a mayoral election in which race was a major issue.

On the other hand…

I just finished reading Mr. Wilder’s holiday message in this week’s Vision Newsletter (http://eservices.ci.richmond.va.us/applications/newsletters/mayor/visions.asp). It seems that Uncle Doug is back. Uncle Doug tells us about his unannounced visit to Fairfield Court Elementary School and how well he was treated by school principal Dr. Irene Williams. (This maven is not so egotistical to think that Mr. Wilder was following my advice to him on December 7 that he spend some of his time in Richmond’s public schools.) In talking of the school and Dr. Williams, Mr. Wilder says,
"This highly-motivated and selfless devotion to cause and to duty impressed me beyond measure. Here is a school in the shadow of public housing units portraying to all who would care that yes, these young people can learn. They can show that it doesn't matter where you were born or your economic status - you can achieve and overcome and become outstanding contributing citizens."
He concludes with
"The holiday season represents a time of love, joy, remembrance and reflection. Amid the food, decorations and festivities, it is also a time to look ahead and envision the means toward a brighter future for our community."

Just when I was getting really mad with Mr. Hyde, Uncle Doug uses his Dr. Jekyll to make me love him again (at least for the moment). Didn’t I tell you that Doug watching was so much fun?

An Open Letter to Mayor Wilder

Dear Uncle Doug,

That was a really great picture of you with the hard hat in Wednesday’s TD. But I knew right away when Michael Martz quoted you as saying, “This is a helluva atrium! I've never seen anything like it in my life!" you weren’t talking about the new learning courtyard at Westover Hills Elementary School. In case you missed it, that atrium for our kids was put together with the money and work from the Westover Hills School community and its business partners. It’ll be a great place for the kids to learn about nature and that kind of stuff.

Of course, the atrium you were talking about, at the new Hilton Garden Inn being built on the old Miller & Rhoads site, is probably a lot prettier than the one at Westover Hills. And the people who see it will probably be of a much better class than the students that go to our schools. I would imagine that many of our students will never see it at all. But, it was a great photo op.

I also like that one of you last week leaving your hand print to be hung on the wall at the new North Boulevard Cinema. It really has the homey touch. It takes the edge off of some of the bad press you’ve been getting lately. I wish that nasty Judge Spencer could just get to know you. Maybe then she wouldn’t be writing those decisions against you.

There are probably some people that will criticize you for all these photo ops. They might think they are a waste of time, especially when the city has so many problems. I really have to disagree with them. I understand fully you hanging out with the business men. I know that all the new business development will increase tax revenue for the city. I also know that once that revenue rolls in you’re going to make sure that the City Council appropriates it all for Richmond Public Schools. Those people who think you don’t care about the kids just because you insist on the School Board cutting $20 million from their budget before you’ll talk to them just don’t know the real Doug Wilder.

Uncle Doug, there is another thing you could do for the kids. You might consider spending an hour or so each week in one of our public schools reading to the kids or helping them learn to read better or to learn their math. As the Crupi report indicated last week, there are a lot of kids in our schools who can really use your help. If you choose to do it, and I really hope you do, I suggest that you don’t bring the photographers or reporters. Trying to make sure our kids succeed is not something you want to do with the camera running. It’s not a photo op. It’s just doing the right thing.

Take care.

Maven

Well Earned Awards

1- The Chutzpah Award for the first half of November is awarded to L. Douglas Wilder, our beloved mayor. In a TV interview last week Uncle Doug indicated that it was not his fault that he was the defendant in two law suits. He stated that he had sued nobody. He was just doing his job. It was the City Council and the School Board who sued him.

C’mon, Mr. Wilder. That’s like a bank robber who claims he is sitting in the defendant’s chair in court only because the police and the prosecutor chose to arrest and prosecute him. (It’s an analogy; I am not accusing the mayor of robbing banks). Mr. Mayor, you are a defendant in two law suits because you chose to ignore an ordinance enacted by City Council. The Richmond city charter indicates that you are to carry out the laws of the Commonwealth and the ordinances of the City. If you claim the power to ignore city ordinances, you are likely to end up in court.

2- The Neville Chamberlain Appeasement Award goes to City Council member Doug Conner for his November 10 letter to the editor in the Times-Dispatch. In his letter, Mr. Conner said,

“I offer the following to start dialogue: RPS should move from City Hall. The city should pay for the move and the rent on 3600 West Board for two years; talk of the mayor and Harry Black personally paying for the failed eviction should cease; drop the lawsuits and mediate; the mayor should lead education town halls that include the City Council and the School Board.”

I certainly agree with Mr. Conner that if the mayor gets his way in his dispute with the City Council and the School Board all will be quiet in the city again. All that is needed to bring these nasty little political disputes to an end is for the council, the board and the citizens of Richmond to concede that the mayor has all the power he wants. I am sure that if Uncle Doug is allowed dictatorial powers, we shall have “Peace in our Time.”

Mayor Wilder, Repeat After Me

I just read the mayor’s Visions Newsletter for this week (http://eservices.ci.richmond.va.us/applications/newsletters/mayor/visions.asp?ArtID=10805).
The mayor is still making excuses for his disastrous decision to try to evict the RPS administration from City Hall a few weeks back. This, in connection with his treatment last week of the School Board committee and its chair, Betsy Carr, leads me to conclude that the mayor still doesn’t get it. He doesn’t understand that the citizens of this city do not approve of the way he is acting as mayor.

In the interest of saving your administration, Mayor Wilder, repeat after me:

I am sorry. . .

I was completely wrong in trying to evict the school administration from City Hall after the close of business on a Friday afternoon. . .

In the future, I will try really hard not to make mistakes like this again. . .

I need and welcome the contributions and cooperation of all citizens of the city, including the nine members of the City Council, the nine members of the School Board, the Superintendent of Schools, the City Auditor, the City Assessor, and others.

I really hope you can turn things around Mr. Mayor.

It’s Really Tragic

I take no joy from the poll results published in the TD that show that Mayor Wilder’s approval ratings have gone way down. The poll shows that if the election for mayor were held today only 35% of registered voters would vote to reelect Mr. Wilder. I cannot deny that for the past year I have been constantly berating Mr. Wilder for his performance as this city’s chief executive. But that’s not the way I wish it was.

When Mr. Wilder was elected mayor, I was kind of excited. I thought he would provide the type of leadership that any city could use. I have been greatly disappointed. That is the reason that I have felt compelled to criticize him.

Almost from the day he took the oath of office L. Douglas Wilder has been acting as if he had been anointed instead of elected. He has attempted to purge the leadership of the city to remove anyone who doesn't agree with him. He has not acted like a leader. A leader tries to bring about change by persuading other people to follow and by making compromises if necessary. Mr. Wilder tries to lead by imposing his will, by making unfounded public charges against anybody who tries to be independent. And he has never thought himself to be bound by the law.

I think it is tragic that this man, who has earned a place in history, should destroy his reputation in a few short years. Unfortunately, he will be remembered most for his attempt to evict the School Board from City Hall rather than for the things he accomplished as Governor of the Commonwealth.

Hopefully, Mr. Wilder will use the poll results as a wake-up call. He still has a year before the next election to regain the trust and support of the citizens of Richmond. I wish him well.

Uncle May I?

When I was a lad, back in Brooklyn, USA, we played a little street game called “Mother May I?” The rules were simple. One kid, the mother, stood on one end of the backyard. The other kids stood on the other end at the starting line. The mother would then give instructions on how they could cross the divide between them. S/he might say, “Fred, you may take one giant step.” Fred could do nothing until he asked, “mother may I?” The kid playing mother would then either say “yes you may,” or “no, you may not.” Fred would act accordingly. Mother then would go through each of the other kids, instructing them to take giant steps, itsy-bitsy steps, umbrella steps (you had to spin as you moved), jumps, hops or whatever. Slowly the group of children would advance across the backyard toward mother. If, however, one of the players advanced without asking “mother may I,” he or she would have to go all the way back to the starting line.

According to the TD, School Board member Betsy Carr and Mayor Wilder have been playing this game (now called Uncle May I) and Ms. Carr is not winning. It seems that Ms. Carr, as chair of a School Board committee, has been working on the Board’s revised plan for new and renovated school buildings. A Thursday TD article indicated that the School Board committee was holding a meeting next Wednesday and had invited city officials and community leaders to provide their input. Ms. Carr stated that “[a]s we’re moving forward for a great city and making the schools best as possible, we need to get everybody thinking their best thoughts of how we can make it work together.”

Ms. Carr’s motive seemed pure and her position seemed reasonable but as indicated in Friday’s TD, Ms. Carr has made a fatal mistake. Before she moved, she failed to ask Mr. Wilder “Uncle May I?” It makes no difference that Ms. Carr “thought the invitation [to city officials] met Wilder’s desire for better communication between various parts of city government.” It makes no difference that this meeting would accomplish a great deal. Ms. Carr did not ask Uncle Doug for his permission and now she must return to the starting line.

It is tragic that Ms. Carr had to learn this lesson the hard way. Of course, it would be a lot easier if our regal chief executive employed a protocol officer to explain to us mortals which hoops we need to jump through to make His Excellency happy. Then Ms. Carr would have known how to proceed without offending the mayor.

As you might expect, Ms. Carr’s failure to ask “Uncle May I” has converted our benevolent Uncle Doug into the vengeful dictator that he sometimes becomes. He has listed new rules for playing the game in the future. King Doug now insists that before he will accept any further communications from the School Board on the issue of school construction or renovation, the School Board and the School Superintendent must carry out the recommendations made last winter in the City Auditor’s audit of Richmond Public Schools. His Excellency has indicated that his support for new or renovated schools will depend on actions taken by school officials to save money. “When you do this, we’ll do that. It’s a quid pro quo situation,” the mayor said.

I am sorry that this had to happen to a hard-working, independent minded public servant like Ms. Carr. Of course, she is the exactly the type of person that King Doug has been trying to drive out of city government since his coronation. If there is one thing His Excellency cannot stand it is someone who doesn’t answer to him. Ms. Carr, welcome to the long list of public officials who have drawn the mayor’s wrath for trying to do the right thing. I wish you the strength and courage to keep up the good fight.

Atta Way Doug!

I really have to stop criticizing Mayor L. Douglas Wilder. Despite his antagonizing most of the city by evicting the school administration from City Hall, it is clear that Doug knows what it takes to placate the voters. What it takes is for the city to spend four or five millions dollars to build a 73 slip marina on the James River at the site of the Intermediate Terminal. How can any one continue to criticize Mayor Doug when he comes up with plans that are so beneficial to the taxpayers of Richmond? Now you might say that you don’t have a boat and can’t imagine why your tax dollars should be used for a marina. Obviously, you are short sighted.

There are many ways that the mayor’s proposed marina will help the City of Richmond:

1- Those of you who watched the HBO series “The Wire” are fully aware how spending millions of dollars for waterfront development will turn around our public schools and cut our crime rate, just as it did in Baltimore;

2- Doug can lure the school administration out of City Hall by offering them floating headquarters;

3- The mega-yachts that will dock at Richmond will provide lucrative employment for our high school dropouts;

4- Our children can go on school field trips to the marina to see the big sail and power boats that they will never be able to afford;

5- Richmond Public Schools can provide accessible classrooms for our handicapped children since the mayor refuses to spend a cent to make school buildings accessible; and

6- When shots are fired in your neighborhood, you can invite all your neighbors to spend the night safely on your family yacht.

If none of these reasons convince you, then I recommend that you borrow fifty or one hundred thousand dollars to buy a boat. You then can be one of the 73 Richmonders who will directly benefit from the marina.