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.

Hey! That’s Our Money!

For a good part of my career as an attorney for the Federal Government I taught a course called “Principals of Appropriations Law.” I taught the course to other lawyers, to budget officers, to procurement officers, to contracting officers and to myriad other government personnel. In that course I taught the laws and rules governing the proper use of public money. Of all the things I tried to impress upon my students, the most important was that the funds they were administering did not belong to them. Rather, these funds belonged to the taxpayers. It was crucial, therefore, that they only use these funds for authorized purposes and in authorized ways.

Well, after reading the Executive Summary and skimming carefully through the rest of the City Auditor’s latest report on the purchasing and accounts payable functions of Richmond Public Schools, it is apparent to me that there a whole bunch of people working for RPS who need to take the course. The report found many weaknesses in the RPS procurement and bill paying mechanisms. It made 102 recommendations on how RPS could improve these functions and eliminate wasteful spending. (If you want to look at the report, you can download it from the Richmond Times-Dispatch. However, unless you’re a real lover of audit reports or a masochist, I would recommend that you only read the Executive Summary).

On the evening news last night I watched Superintendent of Schools Dr. Deborah Jewell-Sherman discussing the audit report. As quoted in the TD this morning, Dr. Jewell-Sherman likened the audit report to a returned graduate school paper. “In graduate school, if you are going to get less than a B on a paper, your professor hands it back and says: redo. This is a redo.” Schools audit sparks calls for change I understand the superintendent’s desire to put the proper spin on the auditor’s findings. I also understand that the purpose of an audit is to help an organization recognize and fix its shortcomings. It is not intended to be an indictment. However, there is a certain lack of accountability in the superintendent’s statement that bothers me. I would have much preferred “We blew it. I am responsible. We will do better in the future.” Calling the audit report a “redo” shows a lack of appreciation for the fact that a lot of taxpayer money was wasted by the weaknesses in RPS’s operations.

Dr. Jewell-Sherman’s statement also fails to recognize the devastating effect this audit report has on the already weak public support for Richmond Public Schools. The superintendent needs to look at the public comments last night on the TD’s first story on the audit report. Auditor blasts Richmond school system There are five pages of comments and most of them are quite negative.

In a recent post (You Got Trouble Folks! Right Here In River City) I reiterated my five principals for repairing Richmond Public Schools: 1-Treating all students as if they were our own; 2- demanding excellence from all our students; 3- Holding our teachers accountable for their students’ learning; 4- responsible budgeting; and 5- accountability. In talking about accountability I indicated that the voters of Richmond should hold both the City Council and the School Board accountable for the operation of our public schools. I said that the School Board must hold the superintendent accountable for the day to day operation of the schools. I concluded with “Every person who has authority to spend school funds must be held strictly accountable for the money they spend.” I see now that that last sentence didn’t go far enough.

In a subsequent post (A Watchdog with Teeth) I quoted from the Government Auditing Standards in setting forth the accountability of public officials or employees in dealing with public funds. In short, those entrusted with handling public resources are:
1- responsible for applying those resources “efficiently, economically, and effectively” for the purposes for which the resources were provided;
2- responsible for complying with applicable laws and regulations;
3- responsible for establishing and maintaining effective controls to ensure that the funds are properly and efficiently used; and
4- accountable to the public for the resources provided to carry out government programs and services.

The School Board and the Superintendent of Schools need to regain public confidence in Richmond Public Schools. They must establish an atmosphere of accountability throughout the school system. They must teach every employee that s/he is personally responsible to the taxpayers for the way s/he uses public resources. They must establish a system of internal controls in RPS that greatly reduces the possibility of misuse of funds. They cannot allow mismanagement in operations to cloud what is the real mission of Richmond Public Schools—to provide a world-class education to every child in the city.

A Watchdog with Teeth

Monday, in a press release, mayoral candidate Paul Goldman urged moving the City Auditor’s functions to the office of City Treasurer where it would be immune from political pressures. In Mr. Goldman’s words,

[W]e need a truly independent auditor, someone who never has to worry about whether he or she might lose their job due to pressure from the politicians on City Council or in City Hall on account of any audit project.
Therefore, I propose that the City Treasurer be given the city auditor function, thus transferring that legal responsibility to an independently elected official accountable to the people.

Although I agree with Mr. Goldman that the auditing function should not be subject to political pressure, I do not think that the City Treasurer, whose primary job is to assure the collection of state taxes and their transfer to the Commonwealth, is the right official to oversee the auditing function.

But wait, Maven, why do we need an auditor at all. Isn’t it all just bean-counting?

Dear reader, I and thousands of other residents of River City pay beaucoup bucks in taxes to support our government. We have a right to expect that our elected and appointed officials will use that money lawfully and efficiently. As explained in the Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States:

· Public officials and others entrusted with handling public resources … are responsible for applying those resources efficiently, economically, and effectively to achieve the purposes for which the resources were furnished. This responsibility applies to all resources, whether entrusted to public officials or others by their own constituencies or by other levels of government.
· Public officials and others entrusted with public resources are responsible for complying with applicable laws and regulations. That responsibility encompasses identifying the requirements with which the entity and the official must comply and implementing systems designed to achieve that compliance.
· Public officials and others entrusted with public resources are responsible for establishing and maintaining effective controls to ensure that appropriate goals and objectives are met; resources are safeguarded; laws and regulations are followed; and reliable data are obtained, maintained, and fairly disclosed.
· Public officials and others entrusted with public resources are accountable both to the public and to other levels and branches of government for the resources provided to carry out government programs and services.

Auditing is the public function that assures that all these responsibilities are being fulfilled. By reviewing and reporting on government operations, the public auditor enables taxpayers to feel confident that their tax money is being properly spent.

Richmond’s City Auditor is appointed by the City Council under section 4.18 of the City Charter and may be removed by the council under section 4.14 of the charter “for any lawful reason or no reason.” Mayor Wilder has repeatedly used this fact to charge that the auditing function is politically motivated. The mayor has objected to the City Auditor, Umesh V. Dalal, auditing the executive offices of Richmond government rather than Richmond Public Schools, where Mr. Wilder “knows” that all the fraud, waste and corruption are hiding. In a blistering letter last summer, Mayor Doug attacked Mr. Dalal for his “effrontery” in demanding access to the records of Deputy Chief Administrator Harry Black. Mr. Dalal defended his independence by saying, "Neither the mayor nor the council tells me what to do. [The mayor] is the one insisting that I be independent of the council. That means I have to be independent, period."

The City Council changed things a bit this week by assigning inspector general functions to the City Auditor. Ordinance 2007-285-2008-67. The inspector general functions are defined in the ordinance as:

1- To audit, inspect, evaluate and investigate the activities, records and individuals affiliated with contracts and procurements undertaken by the City and any other official act or function of the City.
2- To conduct criminal, civil and administrative investigations relating to the municipal affairs of the City.
3- To engage in preventive activities, including, but not limited to, (i) the review of legislation, (ii) the review of rules, regulations, policies, procedures and transactions, and (iii) training and education.
4- To refer matters for further civil, criminal and administrative action to appropriate administrative and prosecutorial agencies.
5- To conduct joint investigations and projects with other oversight or law enforcement agencies.
6. To issue public reports.

The ordinance also creates the Inspector General Oversight Board for the purpose of monitoring and overseeing the inspector general functions of the City Auditor. In addition to reporting on the activities of the City Auditor, the board will have a role in the possible removal of the auditor from office. The ordinance provides:

(2) Prior to any removal of the City Auditor, the Council shall forward a copy of the resolution introduced to effectuate the removal of the City Auditor along with a written statement of the reasons for the removal to the Board for review and recommendation.
(3)The Board shall review the resolution and the reasons given for the removal and shall hold a public hearing on the matter before voting on a recommendation to remove or not remove the City Auditor.

This purpose of this procedure is described as establishing and maintaining the independence of the inspector general function. However, the ordinance does not change the fact that under section 4.14 of the City Charter the council may still remove the auditor from office with or without cause.

I really won’t comment on the wisdom of expanding the auditor’s functions to include criminal investigation. I think it arises from a misconception by the council that criminal activity is the main cause of misspent government funds. In fact, most misspending of government money is caused by poor management, not crime. Further, having worked for an audit agency that added a criminal investigation unit I can testify that most of the time it was more trouble than it was worth.

I’m also not sure that the Inspector General Oversight Board provides sufficient independence for the City Auditor. So long as the auditor is hired and fired by the City Council s/he is subject to political pressures. However, I don’t think that Mr. Goldman’s idea that the auditor be elected by the people is the answer.

I propose the following as the best way to protect the independence of the City Auditor:

1- The term of the City Auditor should be set at a definite term, say seven years;
2- When there is a vacancy, the City Council would prepare a list of three candidates for the position;
3- The city’s Chief Administrative Officer would then appoint one of the people from the City Council’s list as the City Auditor;
4- The City Auditor could only be removed from office by the City Council and then only for cause.

Loyal reader, I’m not sure that guarantying the independence of the City Auditor is enough. Nor do I think that adding the inspector general functions to the auditor’s plate will make much of a difference. The problem is that no matter how big a watchdog we buy, it will not be able to protect the public fisc unless it has real teeth. Regardless of the powers that it assigns to the City Auditor, unless it also provides adequate funding for the office, the City Council will have accomplished nothing.

If you remember, two weeks ago Mayor Wilder’s budget proposed significantly reducing funding for the city auditor. Of course, the mayor’s proposal is absurd. However, merely funding the auditor’s office at this year’s level is clearly not enough.

In the article “Auditor's work, staff don't add up” last December, Times-Dispatch reporter Michael Martz indicated that the auditor’s office was operating with only half of its ten budgeted professional staff. The City Auditor was unable to hire additional staff because of inadequate salaries, competition from other jurisdictions and concern over turmoil at City Hall. David Ress’ TD article this Tuesday indicates that the auditor’s office is still operating with only five professional staff.

By adding the inspector general functions to the City Auditor’s office the City Council has assured that Mr. Dalal can not do his job adequately even if he is able to fill all the vacancies on his staff. I can’t see the auditor’s office doing all the auditing and investigative work that the council has assigned to it without a professional staff of at least twenty people. If the City Council is serious about protecting the taxpayer’s money it must appropriate sufficient funds to the City Auditor’s office to provide our watchdog with strong and sharp teeth.

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.

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.