Agnor-Hurt Elementary School, under the governance of Principal Michele Del Gallo Castner, has posted what could be construed as a Barack Obama campaign poster at the entrance of the school’s library.

The highly stylized placard bears striking resemblance to the famous Obama “Hope” poster, and features:

• President Barack Obama’s posterized likeness
• The President’s signature
• The President’s name, campaign logo and inauguration date
• The Obama Re-Election Campaign’s official web site, www.BarackObama.com

Students visiting the referenced web site will see a picture of the president, a video link in which the president announces his support for “same-sex” marriage, and the following quote:

“Same-sex couples should be able to get married.” —Barack Obama

Site visitors (under this circumstance, presumably students) are then encouraged to “stand up with the president” by submitting their email and zip code information.

The Albemarle County School Board directly addresses the topic of student indoctrination in an internal policy guideline entitled, Teaching About Controversial Issues:

The Albemarle County School Board accepts training for effective citizenship as one of the major purposes of education.  This includes, in part, recognizing that many important areas of study involve issues on which differing positions are held by individuals or groups.

In considering such issues, it shall be the purpose of the Albemarle County Public Schools to allow the student to do the following:

1. Study any controversial issue which has political, economic, or social significance and which is within the range, knowledge, maturity and competence of the students, and which does not conflict with State Board of Education regulations and the Albemarle County School Board Policies and regulations.
2. Provide resources containing a wide range of views on controversial issues so that students may develop the practice of critical reading and thinking.
3. Study under competent instruction in an atmosphere of freedom from bias and prejudice.
4. Form and express opinions on controversial issues without jeopardizing his position with the school.

The role of the teacher in the presentation of controversial issues is vitally important.  All sides of the issue should be given the students in a balanced manner.  The goal is for the students to be taught to think clearly on all matters of importance, and to make their own decisions in the light of all the material that has been presented or can be secured on the issues.  Indoctrination is not a policy of the Albemarle County Public Schools.

Although the instructional program of the school division includes many facets of the political party system in the United States, the School Board does not sanction as a part of the school program the involvement of students in activities that imply school endorsement of an individual political party or candidate.  Individual class assignments and volunteer work involving students in political activities are permissible. [emphasis added]

In contrast to the division’s written policy on indoctrination, the overt display of Obama campaign-oriented material at the school’s library entrance in the main hallway may indicate that:

1. A “wide range of views” is not presented obviously at Agnor-Hurt Elementary
2. Agnor-Hurt Elementary’s “atmosphere” does not appear to be free from “bias”
3. “All sides of the issue” are not presented to the students in a “balanced manner” at Agnor-Hurt Elementary
4. Political “indoctrination” does seem to be the policy at Agnor-Hurt Elementary
5. Agnor-Hurt Elementary appears to be endorsing a political party (Democrat) and their presidential candidate (Barack Obama)

In the midst of a United States presidential election campaign, Albemarle County Schools Administration, the Albemarle County School Board, and Agnor-Hurt Principal Castner should endeavor for strict compliance with the division’s own written policies regarding political indoctrination of students. While the posting of a formal portrait of the United States chief executive in government schools may be considered acceptable if done consistently, the one-sided display of a campaign-type poster along with a link to a campaign web site which promotes a controversial social policy, has no place in a taxpayer-funded American elementary school.

UPDATE 5/17/2012 9:49 AM: Controversial Obama poster now removed and replaced with appropriate portrait of the president, per Principal Castner.

View pictures of Agnor-Hurt Elementary and the President Barack Obama poster:

[Show as slideshow]

[View with PicLens]

For an upcoming 4^th and 5^th grade performance at Albemarle County’s Broadus Wood Elementary School in central Virginia, music teacher, Jean Flaherty, has altered a key line from the 1985 Michael Jackson / Lionel Richie composition, “We Are The World.” In an effort to avoid offending non-believers, Flaherty overtly removed lyrical reference to “God.”

The second half of the first verse, as composed by Jackson and Richie, reads:

We can’t go on pretending day by day
That someone, somewhere will soon make a change
We are all a part of God’s great big family
And the truth, you know,Love is all we need
[emphasis added]

Flaherty’s edited version changed the third line:

We are all a part of one great big family
[emphasis added]

Seeking to further shelter her students from Biblical assault, Flaherty made an additional exchange. In a semblant reference to Matthew 4:3, wherein the devil asks Jesus to prove his divinity by turning stone to bread (Jesus did not succumb), the original lyric for verse three, says:

Send them your heart so they’ll know that someone cares
And their lives will be stronger and free
As God has shown us by turning stones to bread
So we all must lend a helping hand
[emphasis added]

Unable or unwilling to subtly alter this (somewhat convoluted) Biblical reference, Ms. Flaherty substituted a god-less verse re-written for We Are The World 25 For Haiti:

Send them your heart so they’ll know that someone cares
So their cries for help will not be in vain
We can’t let them suffer; no we cannot turn away
Right now, they need a helping hand
[emphasis added]

While instructor Flaherty reportedly has told concerned, inquiring parents that their kids are allowed to sing “God” in the modified verse if they so choose, the official lyric sheet does not reflect such an option. And, due to social/peer pressures extant in modern-day government schools, few children are likely to deviate from the rehearsed and distributed lyric in order to vocalize “God” over the suggested “one.”

Lost in the shuffle to shutter references to the Creator are the kids who actually believe that they are children of God, and for whom such blatant redaction, is itself, highly offensive.

There are many god-free alternatives that Ms. Flaherty could have chosen to emphasize the commonality of man, but in selecting a song that was too “offensive” to sing publicly without substantive modification, Flaherty has proven herself utterly tone-deaf to the sensibilities and presentiments of America’s vocal religious remnant.

Listen to We Are The World(ly), as envisioned by Jean Flaherty:

Full, revised lyrics as posted on Ms. Flaherty’s Music Class “homework” page:

There comes a time
When we heed a certain call
When the world must come together as one
There are people dying
And it’s time to lend a hand to life
The greatest gift of all

We can’t go on
Pretending day by day
That someone, somehow will soon make a change
We are all a part of
one great big family
And the truth, you know love is all we need

We are the world
We are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day
So let’s start giving
There’s a choice we’re making
We’re saving our own lives
It’s true we’ll make a better day
Just you and me

Send them your heart
So they’ll know that someone cares
So their cries for help
Will not be in vain

We can’t let them suffer
No we cannot turn away
Right now, they need a helping hand

We are the world
We are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day
So let’s start giving
There’s a choice we’re making
We’re saving our own lives
It’s true we’ll make a better day
Just you and me

When you’re down and out
There seems no hope at all
But if you just believe
There’s no way we can fall
Well, let us realize
That a change can only come
When we, stand together as one

We are the world
We are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day
So let’s start giving
There’s a choice we’re making
We’re saving our own lives
It’s true we’ll make a better day
Just you and me

(repeat)

We all need somebody that we can lean on
When you wake up look around and see that your dreams gone
When the earth quakes we’ll help you make it through the storm
When the floor breaks a magic carpet to stand on
We are the World united by love so strong
When the radio isn’t on you can hear the songs
A guided light on the dark road you’re walking on
A sign post to find the dreams you thought was gone
Someone to help you move the obstacles you stumbled on
Someone to help you rebuild after the rubble’s gone
We are the World connected by a common bond
Love- the whole planet sing it along

We are the world
We are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day
So let’s start giving
There’s a choice we’re making
We’re saving our own lives
It’s true we’ll make a better day
Just you and me

Norris, a pro-abortion Democrat, joined about 25 protesters at an April 12 rally on University Grounds to call for an end to feline intubation. This procedure allows medical residents to practice putting tubes down cats’ throats in anticipation of later using the technique to save lives of human babies.

According to a report in the April 13, 2012 Daily Progress, “Norris the Red” called the feline testing process “cruel and unnecessary.”

The Progress story clarifies that no cats have died as a result of the process. Dr. Sandy Feldman, attending veterinarian to subject cats compared the procedure’s aftermath to a “sore throat.”

Sadly, Norris’s concern for “cruel and unnecessary” procedures performed on cats does not extend to human babies, thousands of whom have been (and continue to be) aborted at the University of Virginia Medical Center—just steps away from the UVa “save the cats” rally.

Whether pleading for the comfort of cats or declaring the rights of trees, godless Charlottesville leftists, inspired by morally confused “leaders” like Dave Norris and David Toscano, continue to miss the forest for the trees. And while Charlottesville cats may now be more comfortable in life, Charlottesville babies continue to suffer unspeakable, torturous deaths (warning extremely graphic photo) in the name of “choice.”

This year, Charlottesville City Hall is “swimming in cash”—as it has been for the last decade and beyond, running up cumulative surpluses in the tens-of-millions of dollars and then allocating those funds to “pet” projects, outside of the standard budget process. But in their frenzy to spend every available collected cent, Charlottesville City Council has shown the hapless taxpayer no substantive relief.

In order to jump-start the proscribed “where to cut” discussion, The Schilling Show has proposed more than $13M in red-pen savings: these for consideration by the fiscally clueless City Council Democrats who in 2013 joyfully will fritter $146,183,446 of OPM (other people’s money).

While the list is by no means exhaustive, it is predicated on Constitutional principles of limited government, long forgotten (if ever known) by Charlottesville’s Democrat ruling class.

The city’s projected 2013 real estate tax collection is $50M. With each penny of the real estate tax dollar representing about $525,000 ($50M/95) these identified savings embody a potential real estate tax rate reduction of approximately 25 cents ($13M/$525k)—which would drop the current taxation rate of .95 per hundred to .70 per hundred. The resulting 26% ($13M) reduction in tax confiscations—while painful to profligate Democrat insiders and their political beneficiaries—likely would be a boon to the local economy and a blessing to economically struggling families in Charlottesville.

(H/T to Steven Latimer for providing the red pen!)

Review the Righteous Red Pen Budget Analysis and Proposed Savings (feel free to add your own):

The relationship between city officials and its taxpayers is predicated on trust. The public has the right to expect that government employees are properly trained and competently are discharging their duties. The public has the right to expect that government employees are pursuing the best course of action in regard to spending taxpayer monies. At the very least, the public has the right to expect that law and procedures—enacted to protect the taxpayer from fraud—are being followed veraciously concerning any outlay of public funds by a government entity.

A series of emails obtained by the Schilling Show in the course of a one-year investigation, unfortunately has revealed a disturbing breach of the public trust from inside Charlottesville City Hall. In the process of procuring goods and services for the citizens of Charlottesville, city spokesman and Charlottesville’s Director of Communications, Ric Barrick has violated public records provisions of state code, plainly worded contractual policies, and state procurement guidelines by:

1. Secretly negotiating with a personally favored higher bidding vendor after the official bidding period was closed; and,
2. Working to manipulate that vendor’s bid downward so that it would appear less expensive than the actual lowest bid—at a cost of thousands of dollars to taxpayers; and,
3. Willfully destroying evidence that possibly would implicate him in the above actions.

Getting the Goods

While much of what Charlottesville city government spends is for personnel and accompanying benefits, a significant portion of its yearly expenditures is accounted for in the purchase of goods and services—a process generally governed by the Virginia Public Procurement Act, of which § 2.2-4300 C states:

To the end that public bodies in the Commonwealth obtain high quality goods and services at reasonable cost, that all procurement procedures be conducted in a fair and impartial manner with avoidance of any impropriety or appearance of impropriety, that all qualified vendors have access to public business and that no offeror be arbitrarily or capriciously excluded, it is the intent of the General Assembly that competition be sought to the maximum feasible degree, that procurement procedures involve openness and administrative efficiency,  that individual public bodies enjoy broad flexibility in fashioning details of such competition,  that the rules governing contract awards be made clear in advance of the competition, that specifications reflect the procurement needs of the purchasing body rather than being drawn to favor a particular vendor, and that the purchaser and vendor freely exchange information concerning what is sought to be procured and what is offered. [emphasis added]

In early 2010 the Charlottesville City Communications Department indicated a desire, through email correspondence, to purchase an automated “channel in a box” solution that would create a turnkey local news, weather, and information solution for Charlottesville’s public access TV10.

Weather Metrics, a Kansas-based weather technology business, sought to provide this service; consequently, Eric Levy, the company’s Broadcast Products Manager submitted a proposal to the city on January 13, 2010. Levy’s offer was to provide the requested “channel in a box” solution at a cost of $26,000 for a 36-month contract.

Ric Barrick and the Request for Quotations (RFQ)

After months of procrastinating and occasional back and forth emails with Levy, on November 12, 2010 spokesman Barrick apologetically notified Mr. Levy that Weather Metrics would have to submit a Request for Quotation (RFQ) if Levy’s company wanted to compete for the contract.

From: Barrick, Ric [mailto:BARRICK@charlottesville.org]
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 2:30 PM
To: Eric Levy
Subject: Charlottesville Bid

Eric

Sorry that this took so long and that we are a government entity that has to go through this. Hope that you all can take the time to fill out our RFP????????. [sic, should be RFQ]

Ric

On November 15, 2010, following internal discussion with Charlottesville’s Procurement & Risk Management Services Manager Jennifer Luchard, Barrick issued the proposed RFQ on behalf of the city of Charlottesville. Five possible vendors were asked to provide:

“a turn-key solution to our government access channel’s broadcast interface to provide news and weather information either provided over the internet or entered manually through a web-based product.”[sic]

According to the RFQ, the city’s acceptance of proposals was time limited:

Request for Quotations Will Be Received Until 11/22/10 at 5:00 PM local prevailing time For Furnishing The Goods/Services Described Herein.

Item H of the city’s RFQ promised to award the contract to the lowest bidder:

AWARD OF CONTRACT: Awards shall be based on determination of the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. No contract may be awarded to a bidder who is determined by the Purchasing Agent to be non-responsible

Out of five approached vendors, only two responded to the City’s request, Weather Metrics (Ric Barrick’s self-professed preferred vendor) and Weather Central.

The initial submitted bids offered the following terms of service:

*lowest bidder

[Note: The original Weather Metrics bid electronically submitted to Barrick on November 18, 2010 was named: City of Charlottesville 24 x 7 pricing Barrick 11-18-10.pdf)

Dissatisfied with the ultimate result of the RFQ (i.e. Weather Central’s lower bid), and well after the bidding closing date of 11/22/2010, Barrick emailed Jennifer Luchard on December 8, 2010 to inquire if there was any wiggle-room in the awarding process:

From: Barrick, Ric
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 3:56 PM
To: Luchard, Jennifer
Subject: RFPs

Jennifer

Does the process we went through for the 24/7 weather system RFP require us to take the lowest bid?  I’m trying to bargain us down with the vendor that we want but we are still a few thousand apart.  Not sure what, if any, flexibility that we have.  I’m only inclined to buy from one vendor because the product is so superior and customizable.  Thanks for your help with this.

Ric

Ric Barrick
Director of Communications?City of Charlottesville
"The Best Place to Live in America"

434-970-3129 main
434-989-9373 cell
434-970-3890 facsimile

Informed of Barrick’s express desire to engage in RFQ post-closing-date collusion with an as-of-yet unawarded vendor, Luchard responded promptly that the contract needed to go to the lowest bidder but also that she and Barrick should further “discuss” the situation by phone:

From: Luchard, Jennifer
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 4:45 PM
To: Barrick, Ric
Subject: RE: RFPs

I believe that was a RFQ (Request for Quotation).  We discussed going the RFP route so we could consider factors other than price and negotiate, but I believe you felt like the requirements and qualifications could be described well enough to go with the low bid instead.  Did you use the draft I sent you on Nov. 10th?  If so, the award clause says award is to the lowest responsive/responsible bidder.  I'm around most of the day tomorrow.  Sounds like we need to discuss.  I'm @ ext. 3869.

Thanks,

Jennifer

The Negotiation

Despite Luchard’s clear written admonition that Barrick needed to select the lowest bidding vendor (Weather Central), despite Weather Metric’s obviously significantly higher bid, and despite the fact that the RFQ had closed weeks prior, Ric Barrick began an apparent circumvention of clearly stated, contractual procurement procedures in order to steer the contract award to his preferred vendor, Weather Metrics, cost considerations be damned.

On December 9, 2010—16 days after the RFQ closing date—Barrick sent an email to Weather Metrics’ Eric Levy, attempting to further negotiate the terms of Mr. Levy’s November 18 RFQ bid. (When contacted by the Schilling Show, a management source for Weather Central confirmed that his company was not given a similar opportunity to participate in post-RFQ closing re-bidding.)

In his correspondence to Levy, Barrick proffered that Weather Metrics slash the term of their initial $26,000 bid—from 36 months to 18 months—so that it would superficially appear less expensive than Weather Central’s $18,490 quotation (which was for 36 months). Conveniently, Barrick included a copy of low-bidder Weather Central’s RFQ bid as well as a suggestion that Weather Metrics reduce their price to $17,000, which would then allow Barrick to designate their bid as the “lowest” received. Not content to merely manipulate Weather Metric’s initial bidding price— thereby resulting in a substantially higher long-term taxpayer cost—Barrick seemingly goes on to promise vendor Weather Metrics the city’s continued “generosity” if they help to perpetuate the “low-bid” fiction:

From: Barrick, Ric [mailto:BARRICK@charlottesville.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 2:28 PM
To: Eric Levy?Subject: FW: RFPs

Eric

So here’s the deal.  We need to go with the lowest cost bid for the entirety of the project.  We much prefer Wx Metrics but there is currently a large difference.  The lowest bid is 18,490 but that is largely because they are only charging a $250 Data subscription fee for 30 months.  I know that you all can’t reduce the $500 monthly fee but I am wondering if you all would be willing to have the terms be only 18 months which would reduce the cost of the RFQ to $17,000.  I know that is a big difference but perhaps we could find a way to convince you all that we would continue with Wx Metrics beyond that.  Attached is the lowest bid for your reference as it is public information.  Thanks in advance for your help.

Ric

Ric Barrick
Director of Communications?City of Charlottesville
“The Best Place to Live in America”

434-970-3129 main
434-989-9373 cell
434-970-3890 facsimile

Unsurprisingly, Barrick’s email was met with an enthusiastic reply from Weather Metrics’ Eric Levy:

From: Eric Levy [mailto:elevy@weathermetrics.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 07:12 PM
To: Barrick, Ric
Subject: RE: RFPs

Ric,

Thanks for your email!  I discussed with our management team and we can make it work for you for 18 months…  I am confident that you will be so happy that after 18 months you will want to continue using the system.  I also think you will get a ton more value with our system out of showing local City of Charlottesville information on the channel (ie community programming, crawl, events calendar, etc.)  It’s going to be awesome!

I will give you a call in the morning to figure out how we should proceed.  You can reach me at 913.378.1209 if I don’t reach you first.

We are looking very forward to helping you with this.  Thank you for the opportunity to work with you and the City of Charlottesville!?Eric

Eric Levy Director of Broadcast Products
Weather Metrics
Direct:   913.378.1209
Cell:       913.271.1626
Office:   913.438.7666
11100 W. 91st Street / Overland Park, KS / 66214
http://www.weathermetrics.com/

The Manipulation

Subsequent to his December 9 response to Ric Barrick, Eric Levy submitted another bid to Barrick, this time, the file was named: City of Charlottesville 24 x 7 pricing Barrick 11-18-10a.pdf [note: this file name is identical to that of the Weather Metrics bid submitted on November 18 except that “a” is appended to the end of the original file name]

Levy’s revised “a” RFQ came in at exactly $17,000—the number Barrick “suggested” to Levy in his December 9 email, as a bid-winning total. Troublingly, Levy’s revised RFQ (City of Charlottesville 24 x 7 pricing Barrick 11-18-10a.pdf) was not date corrected, as the document is marked November 18, 2010 although it apparently was submitted on or about December 10, 2010. In other words, Weather Metrics’ new bid was backdated 21 days prior to its actual submission date to Ric Barrick. Levy’s revised bid now appeared to fall neatly within the original RFP closing date of November 22, 2010.

The final bid resulting from Barrick and Levy’s post-closing-date collusion reflected a lower total price from Weather Metrics than from Weather Central; however, it also is patently obvious that the revised bid actually represented far less value to the city taxpayer due to the 18-month discrepancy in service terms, and because of Weather Metrics’ higher monthly fees:

*bid received 21 days after the RFQ closing date and backdated to 11/18/10

Item I of the city’s RFQ clearly states that modifications of bids are not acceptable after the closing date, which was November 22, 2010 in this instance:

BID ACCEPTANCE PERIOD: Each bid submitted must be and remain valid for a period of at least thirty (30) days from bid opening. Erroneous quotations may be reclaimed or superseded any time prior to closing time; Modification of or corrections to quotations are not acceptable after the closing time specified. Any new quotation must be marked as in Section A with the additional notation “Supersedes all previous submissions.” No bidder may withdraw his quotation from consideration after closing time due to a mistake, except as permitted by Virginia Code § 2.2-4330. [emphasis added]

Virginia Code § 2.2-4318 seems to confirm that the lowest bid shall be accepted without further negotiation; and that post-deadline negotiation is possible exclusively with the lowest bidder, and then, only under certain restrictive conditions:

§ 2.2-4318. Negotiation with lowest responsible bidder.

Unless canceled or rejected, a responsive bid from the lowest responsible bidder shall be accepted as submitted, except that if the bid from the lowest responsible bidder exceeds available funds, the public body may negotiate with the apparent low bidder to obtain a contract price within available funds. However, the negotiation may be undertaken only under conditions and procedures described in writing and approved by the public body prior to issuance of the Invitation to Bid and summarized therein. [emphasis added]

Further, Barrick’s post-deadline negotiations with Weather Metrics’ representative Eric Levy appear to have been a violation of the city’s own terms and conditions as set forth in Section J of the RFQ:

CLARIFICATION OF TERMS: The City will assume no responsibility for oral instructions, suggestion or interpretation. Any question regarding the bid documents and/or specifications shall be directed to the Purchasing Division and any material change will be submitted to all bidders through issuance of an addendum. Any questions related to this RFQ MUST be submitted to Rick [sic] Barrick no fewer than five (5) work days prior to the quotation due date specified. [emphasis original] Questions should be in writing and electronic transmission is preferred. Questions submitted beyond the time specified above may be left unanswered if sufficient time does not allow a response to all prospective bidders without causing an unacceptable delay in the process. Any contact with any City representative, other than that outlined within this solicitation, concerning this RFQ is prohibited. Such unauthorized contact may disqualify your firm from this procurement. [emphasis added]

On December 10, 2010 Barrick benignly submitted to Luchard, Weather Metrics’ revised, backdated bid along with Weather Central’s original bid, declaring Weather Metrics’ submission as the lowest, and thus the contract awardee:

From: “Barrick, Ric” <BARRICK@charlottesville.org>
Date: December 10, 2010 01:37:41 PM EST
To: “Luchard, Jennifer” <luchard@charlottesville.org>

Subject: Our Bids

Attached are the only two bids that we got in for the project after an outreach to five.  The lowest bid from WX metrics and I would like to go with them.  Is there anything else I need to do on my side?  Thanks.

Ric

The Cover-Up

While government-insider manipulation of the public procurement process is disturbing enough in its own right, government cover-up of official law-bending arguably is worse. Much of the damning documentation obtained for this investigation was received during a December 2010 non-specific Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to view a week of Ric Barrick’s email. This FOIA was submitted shortly after Barrick punitively removed The Schilling Show and its host Rob Schilling from his official Charlottesville City email distribution lists, under which Barrick disseminates media releases and other city news.

Many months of rumination over and analysis of the original documents obtained from Barrick led to a second FOIA. This time, the request was issued in order to obtain supporting documents relating specifically to the Weather Metrics contract with Charlottesville City. The Schilling Show’s December 31, 2011 FOIA sought:

An electronic copy of all Weather Metrics RFQs received by the city and any correspondence or document sent to or received from Weather Metrics and/or Eric Levy (of Weather Metrics), by any city employee or elected official. Effective dates of this request are from January 1, 2010 through and including January 31, 2011.

On January 9, 2012 and on behalf of Charlottesville City, Ric Barrick responded to The Schilling Show’s December 31, 2011 FOIA with electronic documentation of correspondence between Eric Levy and several city employees.

Missing from Barrick’s FOIA response were several incriminating communications (unbeknownst to Barrick these missives already were in possession of The Schilling Show) referencing Barrick and Levy’s apparent conspiracy to manipulate the RFQ process. Notably:

1. Barrick’s December 8, 2010 email to Jennifer Luchard in which Barrick asks Luchard if he is bound to accept the lowest RFQ bid was not included in Barrick’s FOIA response.
2. Barrick’s December 9, 2010 email to Weather Metrics’ Eric Levy in which Barrick suggests that Levy lower the number of months in his RFQ in order to appear as the lowest bidder was not included in Barrick’s FOIA response.
3. Levy’s December 9, 2011 email response to Barrick in which Levy agrees to adjust the RFQ terms as Barrick had suggested was not included in Barrick’s FOIA response.

Also missing was a key document—one that fell squarely in the parameters of the December 31 FOIA: City of Charlottesville 24 x 7 pricing Barrick 11-18-10.pdf

This was the original Weather Metrics RFQ response in the amount of $26,000, significantly higher than the actual lowest bid of $18,490, as submitted by Weather Central.

The existence of this specific document was suspected by inference in reviewing Barrick, Levy and Luchard’s correspondences. But it was shown as an attachment (although it was not attached or included in the January 9 FOIA response) to one of the emails Barrick did provide in response to the December 31, 2011 FOIA:

From: Eric Levy [mailto:elevy@weathermetrics.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 3:14 PM
To: Barrick, Ric
Subject: RE: Charlottesville Bid
Attachments: City of Charlottesville 24×7 Pricing Barrick 11-18-10.pdf

Ric,

Per your request, you will find the proposed solution in response to your RFP. The solution includes our 24×7 Channel.Net system, which would enhance your local information channel with additional news and weather information. It will help you automate the process on your local channel and we will help you maintain the channel reducing your work-load.

We are looking forward to helping you with this project! Please give me a call with any questions at 913.378.1209.

Thanks!

Eric

Noting that the document was referenced but not included in Barrick’s FOIA response, a specific request was issued for Weather Metrics original November 18 RFQ response, also known as: City of Charlottesville 24×7 Pricing Barrick 11-18-10.pdf

After several email go-rounds with the City Attorney’s office, including their provision of the wrong document and a claim that the document “could not be located,” it finally was relinquished on January 25, 2012. It’s $26,000 bottom line provided confirming evidence that clearly stated, legal RFQ process requirements had been violated by Ric Barrick—to the advantage of Eric Levy and Weather Metrics and to the detriment of Charlottesville taxpayers who now must pay higher costs for the purchased services.

Attempts to clarify the legal parameters of the RFQ process with city procurement’s Jennifer Luchard—who was at least peripherally aware of Barrick’s attempted manipulations—were met with stony obfuscation. When asked if it was legal to negotiate any terms of the vendor’s submitted RFQ after the RFQ “response date” had passed, Luchard responded with nearly incomprehensible and thoroughly self-defensive legalese:

From: “Luchard, Jennifer” <luchard@charlottesville.org>
Date: January 31, 2012 01:22:08 PM EST
To: ‘Rob Schilling’

Subject: RE: 1/28/2012 follow up question Re: Weather Metrics / Weather Central Contracts

Rob,

A responsive bid from the lowest responsive and responsible bidder is usually accepted as submitted, without negotiation unless the bid exceeds available funding.  If the City includes a negotiation clause in the solicitation, the City may negotiate with the apparent low bidder to obtain a contract price within available funds.  This negotiation clause was not included in this Request for Quotation.

Terms and conditions of the contract form may be negotiated.  The City requires bidders to include with their bids all written agreements, contracts, service agreements, account applications, forms and other documents, of any nature, that the contractor would require the City to sign in connection with any contract resulting from the procurement transaction, or the performance thereof by the contractor.  The City prefers to use its own contract form, and the standard contract form for most purchases less than $100,000 is a purchase order.  For this particular purchase, the contractor required signature on his contract form.

Best Regards,

Jennifer Luchard

Conclusion

Upon final examination of information discovered in the December 2010 and January 2011 FOIA inquires, The Schilling Show requested a meeting with City Manager, Maurice Jones, and City Attorney, Craig Brown, in order to discuss anomalies uncovered during The Schilling Show’s investigation. At the February 21, 2012 meeting both Jones and Brown expressed concern over the presented evidence.

Concurrently a separate meeting was requested with the Charlottesville Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office. Upon discussion with that department, the case was referred to a Special Prosecutor, Orange County Commonwealth’s Attorney, Diana H. Wheeler—under order of Judge Edward L. Hogshire—and a formal investigation commenced.

On March 16, 2012, after interviews with Ric Barrick, Eric Levy, Jennifer Luchard, Maurice Jones and Craig Brown, Ms. Wheeler concluded her investigation with a letter to Judge Hogshire. In her correspondence, the Special Prosecutor stated that she was declining to prosecute Barrick at this time, noting insufficient evidence to prove criminal intent in Barrick’s actions. However, Wheeler went on to cite specific, unresolved concerns regarding Barrick’s and Luchard’s conduct including: “questionable actions,” “less than satisfactory answers to certain questions asked,” and “some apparent violations of rules and policies.”

In consideration of the ascertainable facts, Wheeler’s letter focused specifically on Barrick’s apparent incompetence and inability to comprehend his assigned procurement duties:

I find that there is credible evidence, when viewed as a whole, to lead one to believe that Mr. Barrick:

1. did not adequately understand the difference between and RFP and an RFQ,
2. did not adequately understand the rules and procedures for an RFQ,
3. did not read the entire RFQ he had posted, and
4. did not realize that the bid period was over when he accepted a modified bid from the original bidder.

How both Barrick and Luchard could possibly have been unaware that the bidding period was over defies logic. Luchard knew that Barrick was negotiating with the vendor because he informed her of such. As an overseer of procurement contracts, she should have known that post-bid negotiation as described by Barrick was forbidden, regardless of the bidding period status. But also, Luchard and Barrick discussed that only two bids (out of five prospective bidders) had been received and Barrick submitted those two bids exclusively, to Luchard. According to their internal correspondence and subsequent actions, Luchard and Barrick apparently agreed that as of December 10, 2010 the bidding period was closed and that no more bids could be received. That decision could only have been reached by awareness of the RFQ closing date (November 18, 2010), a situation contrary to the assumptions of Special Prosecutor Wheeler’s findings.

Disturbingly, Wheeler’s letter also notes that Ric Barrick intentionally and willfully deleted from his computer the missing FOIA’d emails referenced above, for fear that the information contained within may cast him in an unfavorable light:

…In the months following, as Mr. Schilling was seeking additional information on the Weather Metrics contract, probably during or after July 2011, Mr. Barrick found emails that made him realize that since he had allowed Weather Metrics to come down from their original bid, he should have given Weather Central the same opportunity, but he did not. He thought that this did not “look good” because he was not fair to Weather Central. He deleted some emails at that point.

According to the Special Prosecutor, Barrick was unable to prove when the emails were deleted, whether in July of 2011, upon receipt of The Schilling Show’s December 31, 2011 FOIA, or at some other time.

In a post-decision meeting with The Schilling Show and investigators, Ms. Wheeler stated that she was unaware of any statute that would require Barrick and the city to maintain email records regarding city business, and thus Barrick’s deletion and attempted cover-up of his dealings was not pursued legally.

However, the Virginia Public Records Act does have legal requirements for records retention among state agencies and localities, as follows:

010185: Purchasing Records – Bid and Bid Proposal Records
This series is used to document the bidding process for items/equipment that are being purchased by the locality. The series consists of the request for bids, bid specifications, and related items.
Retention: Retain 3 year(s) after end of state fiscal year [emphasis added]
Disposition: Non-confidential Destruction

A high-ranking Charlottesville police investigator assigned to the case said he was unaware of any prohibition under city policy regarding the deletion of city email records and did not believe that any backup of deleted email records was maintained by the city. Additionally, he stated his understanding that any email residing on individual city employee computers, once deleted, was gone from the server, as well, with no record of it ever having existed.

The deletion of sensitive emails, the financial defrauding of Charlottesville taxpayers, and the collusion to manipulate the bidding process to the detriment of other bidders is highly problematic procedurally, legally, and ethically. And many questions remain:

• If Ric Barrick, a $95,000 per-year government employee, does not understand public procurement laws and admits to “not read(ing) the entire RFQ he had posted,” who has authorized him and why is he authorized to purchase goods and services on behalf of the city?
• If Jennifer Luchard is unable to adequately administer procurement purchases taking place under her supervision, is she competent to maintain her current position?
• If the City of Charlottesville allows critically important emails to be deleted and does not maintain backups of such correspondence, are they in compliance with Virginia law and is the pubic interest being served?
• Will Barrick personally reimburse taxpayers for the additional costs they will incur as a result of his improper actions?
• Will Barrick and Luchard’s misfeasance and procedural violations be tolerated, or will substantive personnel and procedural changes be implemented inside Charlottesville City Hall?
• And in the light of the gross incompetence and willful manipulation now exposed at the highest levels of Charlottesville City Government, is current city elected and appointed management capable of adequately and proficiently overseeing the execution of city business and guaranteeing ethical conduct from its employees?

Even with multiple legal bulwarks in place:

• the Virginia Public Procurement Act’s checks and balances on process abuse
• the protective language included in the city’s RFQ regarding procedural improprieties and post-closing-date communications and negotiations
• the Virginia Public Records Act’s prohibition against destroying documents critical to the public interest
• fallback information-access safeguards offered by the Virginia Freedom of Information Act

the established citizen-taxpayer protection systems failed catastrophically in this instance. While the legal system presently has chosen not to pursue a case against the transgressors, the court of public opinion may be a more powerful and effective adjudicator. The reputation of Charlottesville city government and the ability to restore public trust in Charlottesville City Hall hangs in the balance.

Timeline of Events

January 13, 2010: Eric Levy of Weather Metrics submits proposal to Joe Rice (Ric Barrick co-worker) offering 36 months of service for $500/month licensing and capital cost of $8000, total cost is $26,000.

November 12, 2010: Ric Barrick alerts Weather Metrics (Eric Levy, preferred vendor) that he will have to fill out RFP (actually an RFQ) in order to compete for the business.

November 15, 2010: RFQ issued by Charlottesville City

November 18, 2010: Eric Levy submits response to RFQ, total price is $26,000 for 36 months. (document: City of Charlottesville 24 x 7 pricing Barrick 11-18-10.pdf)

November 19, 2010: Non-preferred vendor, Weather Central responds to RFQ, total price is $18,490 for 36 months

November 22, 2010: RFQ “response date” ends

December 8, 2010: Barrick alerts Jennifer Luchard (Charlottesville City Procurement & Risk Manager) that he is trying to “bargain down” the “vendor we want” but “still a few thousand apart.” Asks if we have “any flexibility.”

December 8, 2010: Luchard responds to Barrick that since it was an RFQ, “the award clause says award is to the lowest responsive/responsible bidder.” Says, “we need to discuss.”

December 9, 2010: Barrick writes to Levy, disclosing the lower bid of the other vendor and why the price is lower (lower monthly fee $250 vs. $500). Suggests that Levy lower his term to 18 months in order to reduce the total cost to $17,000, with a promise that the city would continue to use Levy beyond the 18 month agreement. Barrick attaches a copy of the competing bid, claiming that it is “public information.”

December 9, 2010: Levy responds affirmatively to Barrick that his management team can “make it work for 18 months.” Requests a phone conversation the following morning to “figure out how we should proceed.”

December 10, 2010: Levy submits an alternate bid (document: City of Charlottesville 24 x 7 pricing Barrick 11-18-10a.pdf) that shows a term of 18 months and a total price of $17,000 as suggested by Barrick on December 9. Submitted new document backdated to November 18, 2010 which fits within RFQ closing date of 11/22/2010.

December 10, 2010: Barrick submits revised Weather Metrics bid ($17,000) and original Weather Central bid ($18,490) to Luchard citing the receipt of only two bids. Claims that Weather Metrics bid is the lowest even though that company’s service terms are for only 18 months as compared to Weather Central’s 36 month terms.

December 22, 2010: Charlottesville issues $17,000 purchase order to Weather Metrics.

February 15, 2011: Eric Levy emails finalized copy of signed contract to Michelle Glass, Charlottesville City.

January 9, 2012: Barrick omits several key documents from December 31, 2011 FOIA response (official email documents he deleted at an undetermined time in order to hide evidence he believed “did not look good”).

Charlottesville Democrats in 2004 attempted to oust golf from the park through a series of meetings, plans, and maneuverings led by then-mayor Maurice Cox, as head of the McIntire Park Master Plan Committee. Although Cox’s design scheme—which included opulent cafés, majestic gardens and expensive water features—was not approved, his concept of commandeering control of the park for professional and political profit lives on in the hearts and minds of the Charlottesville Democrat establishment.

The politics of today’s plan has its genesis in early discussions between McIntire Botanical Garden President, Helen Flamini, and former Charlottesville Mayor (and current City Councilor), Dave Norris, from which Norris emerged to publicly support Flamini’s concept of a golf-less botanical empire in McIntire.

Flamini’s political quid pro quo for Norris’ backing of her $50 million “green dream” at Mcintire, was her direct public support for the mayor’s reelection efforts in a contested Democrat primary. In an April 29, 2009 letter to the Daily Progress, Flamini gushed over Norris’s “exemplary leadership” and his progressive accomplishments. She also shamelessly noted his support for her botanical garden concept:

Working with Charlottesville Parks and Recreation, he has improved city parks, and he has supported the concept and vision to create a botanical garden at McIntire Park, which will enhance residents’ enjoyment and appreciation of nature, promote environmental educational programs, support economic development, increase tourism and guarantee that future generations have an outstanding park system for all to enjoy.

Dedicated leaders like Dave Norris deserve continued support.

While then-Mayor Norris continued to praise the Botanical Garden at every suitable opportunity, Flamini persisted in her conspicuous ennoblement of the mayor. In an October 25, 2009 letter to the Daily Progress, Flamini implored the Charlottesville electorate to return Norris to office:

City Council elections will be here on Nov. 3. There are many issues confronting the citizens of Charlottesville in the days ahead, and it will take dedicated and informed leaders to meet those challenges.

With so many important issues facing the City Council candidates, this would be the wrong time to elect a candidate whose entire focus is on a single polarizing matter.  What is needed is a candidate who is focused on all the important issues affecting the city: affordable housing, transportation, education, recreation, environmental sustainability, revitalization of public housing, fiscal responsibility and McIntire Park.

Dave Norris has worked toward addressing those issues as well as continuing to promote and support the goals from City Council’s Vision Statement-2025 that will continue to make Charlottesville a great place to live for all its citizens.

Innovative, thoughtful ideas to improve community representation are but one example of the leadership role exemplified by Dave Norris. City voters should re-elect Dave Norris and elect Kristin Szakos to City Council, as they work to ensure continued progress in making Charlottesville the great city it already is.

Herself, a resident of Albemarle County (and not of Charlottesville City), Helen Flamini’s audacious public support for Dave Norris must have been perplexing to the casual onlooker—unless viewed through botanical lenses. Two public endorsements of Norris’s candidacy, which she could not personally advance by ballot, were well rewarded by Norris’s continuing advocacy of Flamini’s “pet” garden project.

But, as the Central Party Democrats’ political steamrolling of McIntire Golf did not begin with Dave Norris, nor does it end with him.

Several high-profile Charlottesville Democrats hold high-profile positions with the McIntire Botanical Garden organization:

• Peter MacIntosh, 2011 Democrat candidate for Charlottesville City Council, is Vice President
• Paul Beyer, 2011 Democrat candidate for Charlottesville City Council, is a Board Member
• Linda Seaman, 2012 co-chair of the Charlottesville Democrat Party, and former Democrat candidate for Charlottesville City Council, is a board member
• Karen Firehock, a former Democrat appointee to the Charlottesville Planning Commission, is on the Advisory Committee

Not content with behind-scenes kneecapping of McIntire golf through strategic political partnerships and placements, Charlottesville Democrat operatives now have begun an overt takeover of the McIntire Park “public” planning process. To wit, Democrat City Councilor Kathy Galvin, a Seaman protégé, commandeered the Monday, January 23 McIntire master planning meeting, imprudently and unexpectedly championing a new concept which would completely exclude golf from McIntire Park, as described in coverage by Charlottesville Tomorrow:

“In the three concepts that you have presented to us, you have a very logical, rational illustration of how you cannot make these two big programs [golf and botanical garden] co-exist,” Galvin said. “What you’ve demonstrated is how the golf course can work, and what happens is you have demonstrated that the botanical garden and some of the other uses really don’t work.”  Galvin encouraged another design effort showing what a park dominated by the botanical garden would look like. [emphasis added]

The plans advertised for consideration up to the point of Galvin’s indecorous self-interjection all had included some golf component in the future use of McIntire Park—and all had been discussed in great detail previously at the meeting.

Galvin’s brazen advancement of an unsolicited plan so late into the process—on behalf of the Charlottesville Democrat establishment—rightfully was decried as inappropriate by fair-minded meeting attendees. Yet, subsequent conversations on McIntire’s future have incorporated Galvin’s golf-less vision—which now appears to be the favored future for McIntire Park among Charlottesville’s all-Democrat City Council.

A feeble administrative attempt by city staff to blunt Galvin’s procedural incursion—through the belated introduction of a “golf-only” plan—does nothing to level the course or to even the score. Sadly, once again, naïve participants of Charlottesville’s self-vaunted public planning process not only have wasted time playing in a rigged game, but they have been clubbed by an unscrupulous opponent: the Charlottesville Democrat Machine.

(Photograph of McIntire flip-board courtesy of Charlottesville Tomorrow.)

Frederick, apparently not satisfied with TJPDC’s million-dollar, taxpayer-funded assault on private property rights (under the guise of regional “planning”), now is dispensing advice on how to squelch the speech of climate change “deniers.”

In a February 4 New York Times article about Tea Party activism and United Nations’ Agenda 21, “counterorganizer” Frederick openly presents her contra-constitutional game plan envisioned to mute citizen “critics” of the globalist green agenda:

Summer Frederick, the project manager for the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission in Charlottesville, Va., which withdrew its dues to Iclei and its support from a national mayors’ agreement on climate change late last year after a campaign by protesters, now conducts seminars on how to deal with Agenda 21 critics. (Among her tips: remove the podium and microphones, which can make it “very easy for a critic to hijack a meeting.”) [emphasis added]

While such a diabolical scheme could be effective if implemented covertly, Frederick’s hubris in brazenly discussing methods of disabling community dialogue at public meetings displays either abject arrogance or abject stupidity—or perhaps both.

As stated on its web site, the TJPDC has a noble purpose:

The mission of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission is to serve our local governments by providing regional vision, collaborative leadership and professional service to develop effective solutions.

Yet the TJPDC’s promised mission of “service” is perverted beyond reclamation when a $52,000 per year government employee (Summer Frederick), supervised by a $110,000 per year government employee (Stephen Williams), flagrantly works to promote an anti-American personal agenda while proposing the undermining of foundational American rights—all in the name of “planning.”

Mr. Williams, maybe it’s time to remove Ms. Frederick’s microphone, podium, and employment contract.

Charlottesville, Virginia, a political stronghold of Marxist-leaning Democrat elected officials, has a serious white-on-black racial discrimination problem.

Charlottesville, Virginia, home to a concentration of socially evolved progressives (e.g. pro “marriage rights” and abortion on-demand), has a serious white-on-black racial discrimination problem.

Charlottesville, Virginia, a politically enlightened community, which voted 80% Democrat in the most recent State and Federal elections, has a serious white-on-black racial discrimination problem.

Charlottesville, Virginia is a community apparently populated with liberal white racists. Or so implies University of Virginia Professor Walt Heinecke’s recent proposal to Charlottesville City Council: Charlottesville Commission on Human Rights, Diversity, and Race Relations

According to Heinecke’s report, Charlottesville, Virginia’s serious white-on-black racial discrimination problem is manifested in racially prejudicial hiring practices in private employment—practices that cannot effectively be addressed by existing State and Federal equal-employment laws.

According to Heinecke’s report, Charlottesville, Virginia’s serious white-on-black racial discrimination problem is manifested in racially prejudicial rental practices in private housing—practices that cannot effectively be addressed by existing State and Federal fair-housing laws.

And, most surprisingly (to some), community conversations suggest that Charlottesville, Virginia’s serious white-on-black racial discrimination problem is manifested in racially prejudicial employment practices inside Charlottesville City Hall—an institution run by Democrats and for Democrats essentially since its inception.

Professor Heinecke envisions the proposed Human Rights Commission as a government-appointed body endowed with investigative, prosecutorial, and judicial powers—a body empowered to impose fines and condemn with public consternation “convicted” transgressors deemed “guilty” by Commission appointees.

While Charlottesville City Hall was the only named violator of existing equal-opportunity statutes during a recent City Council discussion on racism, that avowedly racist institution apparently is exempt from prosecution under Heinecke’s plan:

To engage in anti-discrimination enforcement activities including the investigation and resolution of claims of discrimination in private employment and housing as defined by a new City Ordinance. The Commission would have the power to hold hearings, conduct investigations, issue reports, impose fines and remedies. We recommend that the Commission should be structured to be eligible for designation as a Fair Employment Practices Agency (FEPA) in a contract with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). That means it would receive and process complaints of discrimination in private employment from residents of Charlottesville. [emphasis added]

How could Charlottesville City Hall, arguably the City’s most egregious and prodigious racial offender—an organization that allegedly has institutionalized racist employment practices—be exempt from the Commission’s mandate?

According to Mayor Satyendra Huja, it will not. In January 23 interview on WINA’s The Schilling Show, Huja categorically stated that he would not support Heinecke’s proposal if the Commission exempted government from its purview:

SCHILLING: Why would we exempt the government [from Charlottesville Human Rights Commission oversight] when they are acknowledged as a problem by at least several councilors? Or do you disagree with that?

HUJA: I don’t think, uh, I was unaware that the government was exempt from any consternation…

SCHILLING: Oh, they were. Go read, uh, go read Mr. Heinecke’s proposal. It exempts the government; it is only…

HUJA: I see no reason…

SCHILLING: It is only for private landlords and private businesses

HUJA: I see no reason if you’re going to have commission, uh, the government should be exempt. Uh, no reason for it.

SCHILLING: So you wouldn’t support it under any circumstances if the government was exempt?

HUJA: Well, uh, shouldn’t be exempt.

SCHILLING: So you wouldn’t support it under any circumstances if the government was exempt? In this final proposal, if it came before you, you wouldn’t do that.

HUJA: I, I don’t understand why government is exempt; I don’t see any reason.

SCHILLING: Okay, so you wouldn’t support it.

HUJA: No.

Hear the Huja/Schilling exchange on the proposed exclusion of government from Human Rights Commission purview:

Given Mayor Huja’s additional stated concerns about the $200,000-$300,000 annual cost of the Commission on Human Rights and the lack of data to support its necessity, Heinecke’s current proposal may be DOA before Charlottesville City Council without significant modification.

Regardless of Council’s ultimate action on Heinecke’s remedial proposition, the question remains: Why would Professor Heinecke and his Community Dialogue on Race “working group” champion a proposal that exempts Charlottesville City Hall, purportedly the city’s most notorious racial malefactor?

(Satyendra Huja photo courtesy of Charlottesville Tomorrow.)

Schilling Show Exclusive: Click to play Part of the 99 as sung by Ms. Murray’s 3^rd grade class

Initially, after becoming embroiled in a national school-indoctrination scandal, KPA along with Albemarle County School Administration insisted that the children in Ms. Murray’s third-grade classroom at Woodbrook Elementary wrote all of the lyrics to the controversial song themselves.

Phrases like, “Then the bubble burst” and “Though I lost my yacht and plane” raised suspicions that such lines likely were beyond the intellectual purview of contemporary eight-year-olds enrolled in a government school.

Still, in a January 3 Daily Progress story on the controversy, the group’s Executive Director, Pat Rogers said that KPA’s “sole mission has been and continues to be to inspire and empower children to work together to become creators of their own music.” [emphasis added]

Rogers also denied any political influence of children by KPA facilitators:

“Kid Pan Alley does not promote nor condone any personal or political agenda.”

In the same article, Albemarle County Schools’ spokesman Phil Giaramita stood by the apolitical claims of KPA:

“There’s no question in my mind that [Kid Pan Alley is] firmly committed to teaching kids, and they are not interested in a political agenda.”

The paper’s story continues with supportive remarks from Albemarle County School Board chair, Steve Koleszar, who confirmed his belief that the lyrics in dispute were, in fact, the sole composition of Woodbrook third graders:

“Sometimes, when kids are writing things, they say things that are controversial. I don’t think we need to be censoring what the kids are writing.”

And, in a January 3 Schilling Show debate with J. Christian Adams, Koleszar doubled down on his authorship claims:

“You have underestimate the breadth and knowledge of experience that children have these days when they have cable TV, uh, when they listen to the news, they are up on current events, you underestimate what our kids can do.” [sic]

Today’s KPA press release tells a different story.

In the dispatch, KPA’s Founder and Artistic Director, Paul Reisler, “takes full responsibility for the songwriting process that resulted in the song titled ‘Part of the 99.’”

The release confirms Reisler’s political and lyrical contributions to the song:

“Reisler acknowledges that he should have avoided the introduction of these phrases into the songwriting process.” [emphasis added]

And, KPA’s claim to be a politically unbiased organization has been debunked by newsbusters.org, who detail the left leaning politics of several “Alley” board members and leaders.

Aside from Koleszar, the majority of the board has been strangely silent on the Kid Pan Alley controversy, with the exception of newly elected Jason Buyaki, who during the Schilling Show debate called in to express his concern over the situation.

It remains to be seen when or if Albemarle County Schools’ administration will issue a statement acknowledging the falsehoods promulgated in previous communications regarding Kid Pan Alley vis a vis the charges of student indoctrination and songwriting process manipulation.

Read full transcription of lyrics from Kid Pan Alley’s “Part of the 99”

Some people have it all,
but they still don’t think that they have enough
They want more money
A faster ride
They’re not content
Never satisfied
Yes-  they are the 1 percent

I used to be one of the 1 percent
I worked all the time
Never saw my family
Couldn’t make life rhyme
Then the bubble burst
It really, really hurt
I lost my money
I Lost my pride
I Lost my home
Now I’m part of the 99

Some people have it all,
but they still don’t think that they have enough
They want more money
A faster ride
They’re not content
Never satisfied
Yes-  they are the 1 percentI used to be sad now I’m satisfied
Cause I really have enough
Though I lost my yacht and plane
Didn’t need that extra stuff
Could have been much worse
You don’t need to be first
I’ve got my friends
Here by my side
I don’t need it all
I’m happy to be part of the 99.

Some people have it all,
but they still don’t think that they have enough
They want more money
A faster ride
They’re not content
Never satisfied
Yes-  they are the 1 percent
They’re the 1 percent
They’re the 1 percent

Recent discussion threads on OC’s Facebook page (see below) show only limited tolerance for “offensive” free speech, especially when it involves criticism of President Obama or “name calling.” In this instance, not only was a member silenced for contrarian expression, but also all vestiges of her posts were eradicated from the digital discourse without notice or warning.

When challenged on the muzzling by a concerned Occupier, several of the group’s Facebook participants defended the censorship citing violation of OC’s “core values” and the poster’s promulgation of “personal attacks” on “active” group members.

Suppression of speech? From the same group that portrayed the First Amendment as the cornerstone of its existence?

A distaste for invective? From the same group whose members dubbed Dave Norris, the Mayor of Charlottesville, “Dave F*cking Norris,” both online and in public?

Violation of “core values”? From the same group whose members gleefully screamed at a female Charlottesville Police Officer: “I heard pigs has 30-minute orgasms; is that true?” and “Show me your t*ts, pig”?

Confronted with a relatively mild free speech paradox, Occupy Charlottesville has failed miserably. Primarily because this group was never truly about “free speech”— although, many members deluded themselves into believing theirs was a First Amendment fight. The “Seinfeld” of protest movements, Occupy Charlottesville was and is all about nothing—or perhaps, more accurately, all about doing nothing. Witness able-bodied Occupiers bemoaning lack of financial opportunity while simultaneously forgoing local employment solicitations in order to lounge in Lee Park for nearly two months.

Signs in the group’s former encampment warned Occupiers that if approached by the media, no one speaks for the group and that everyone speaks only for himself. Under this systemic non-accountability, no individual could be held responsible for an action or statement of any associate. Where order, doctrine, structure, and responsibility are absent, anarchy reigns. Such was, and is the case with Occupy Charlottesville—a movement born of and continuing in lawlessness.

Occupiers, enamored with Kristin Szakos’ pro-Occupy maxim that “Free Speech doesn’t end at 11:00,” have mired themselves in a self-created First Amendment quagmire by squelching rights the group claimed to champion. And in doing so, Occupy Charlottesville has exposed itself as a hypocritical and fraudulent crusade—like all Marxist movements before it—preoccupied not with precepts of freedom, but with the imposition of veiled autocracy and the suppression of free expression.

It’s 11 PM Occupy Charlottesville: do you know where your principles are?

Read Occupy Charlottesville’s Facebook “free speech” exchange:

Senna August Beall
last week, I posted something that got a response by a girl named Meganne. Some found it argumentative, called her a “troll”, and suggested she be “blocked” for simply stating her opinions about Occupy and why she thought we should concentrate on dismantling the Fed and impeaching Obama. Later, her comments disappeared and I said “I hope no one blocked her”. I got an email from her that she was indeed blocked from Occupy Charlottesville facebook page and could no longer see, post or comment. So much for free speech? Admin of this page, why block somebody who doesn’t agree?

An October 24 “Indemnity Release” and “Special Event Application” signed by Occupy Charlottesville representative, Bailee Elizabeth Hampton, definitively states that there will be no alcoholic beverages involved in this activity and that:

“We are not allowing alcohol or other substances”

In addition to ongoing “substance” abuse issues, personal safety of participants is of great concern. Today, Occupiers are asking, through a centrally posted “Camp Needs” bulletin board, for donation of 100 “rape whisles” [sic]. Connection between the arrests and the request is unclear, but the surprisingly frank appeal certainly signals a looming sense of danger in the Occupy encampment.

Prior to OC’s sanctioned occupation of Lee Park, Charlottesville City Council members lauded the organization as peaceful and well mannered. Public requests for “rape whisles,” however, seem incongruous with initial characterizations of Occupy Charlottesville, and perhaps belie the city’s stated trust in the Occupiers to “self-police.”

See Occupy Charlottesville’s “Rape Whistles” wanted posting:

Concurrently, Albemarle County Supervisor Dennis Rooker has scoffed at suggestions that United Nations ideology—promoted by homegrown internationalists and foreign agents—is infiltrating local government with a goal of undermining foundational American principles.

Despite being presented with incontrovertible evidence of such, Rooker has kept his head firmly planted beneath the comfortable sands of self-imposed ignorance. But facts affirm the accusation, and now, additional evidence is surfacing that dangerous infiltration is ongoing locally.

Over the objections of Rooker and Board of Supervisors’ chair, Ann Mallek, the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) recently was ejected from Albemarle County. Rooker pleaded for the County to retain ICLEI membership, touting numerous benefits without strings attached:

“It’s not a part of the United Nations. It’s not supported by the U.N. and it’s not governed by the U.N.,” Rooker said. “We have a tool that staff says is helpful, is inexpensive and that cannot be replaced by anything else that’s out there.”

Provably, Rooker was dead wrong about the lack of relationship between the two entities. Perhaps he might have been swayed on the ICLEI/Sustainability threat had he known that Jie Wu (aka Megan Wu)—the former ICLEI representative to Albemarle County—was (or is) a government official of the People’s Republic of (Communist) China. Her online biography lists her service to the PRC in their Ministry of Environmental Protection, and Wu was trained as a linguist at a university subordinate to the PRC’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There is no evidence that Wu has renounced her Communist Chinese citizenship or forsworn her allegiance to the PRC, and yet, through Albemarle County’s ICLEI membership, Wu received carte blanch access to sensitive, local government operational information and data.

Wu and ICLEI may be gone (for now), but Koren Manning remains. Hired by TJPDC Executive Director, Stephen Williams, Manning is a paid employee of the organization, responsible for Livability Partnership website maintenance, social media outreach, and data analysis among other duties.

Manning holds or has held membership in a secretive, subversive group known as Planners Network: The Organization of Progressive Planning. In their mission statement, Planners Network (PN) advocates undermining America’s present political and economic underpinnings:

Planners Network is an association of professionals, activists, academics, and students involved in physical, social, economic, and environmental planning in urban and rural areas, who promote fundamental change in our political and economic systems.

The Network’s stated goals and objectives read like a page from Marx’s Communist Manifesto (or Charlottesville/Albemarle’s 1998 Sustainability Accords):

We believe that planning should be a tool for allocating resources and developing the environment to eliminate the great inequalities of wealth and power in our society, rather than to maintain and justify the status quo. We are committed to opposing racial, economic, and environmental injustice and discrimination by gender and sexual orientation. We believe that planning should be used to assure adequate food, clothing, housing, medical care, jobs, safe working conditions, and a healthful environment. We advocate public responsibility for meeting these needs, because the private market has proven incapable of doing so.

We seek to be an effective political and social force, working with other progressive organizations to inform public opinion and public policy and to provide assistance to those seeking to understand, control, and change the forces which affect their lives. [emphasis added]

But their utopian, socialist aspiration does not end there. The current PN mission statement has been sanitized from the original. The version found in Network newsletters from the 1980s and 1990s includes the following additional self-descriptive language:

We oppose the economic structure of our society, which values profit and property rights over human rights and needs. This system perpetuates the inequalities of class, race, sex and age which distort human relationships and limit the potential for a decent quality of life. We advocate a shift in current national budgetary priorities to favor human services, social production and environmental protection over military and other nonproductive expenditures. [emphasis added]

A Communist Chinese national and a neo-Marxist planning-activist inside Albemarle County Government—each bought and paid for with taxpayer dollars—should raise red flags to even casual observers. But instead, there is deafening silence.

Albemarle County Government, through ICLEI membership and affiliation with the TJPCD has entrusted confidential and sensitive information to a representative of a government hostile to United States’ interests and to a member of a group that seeks to remake America into a socialist gulag. And, Koren Manning and Jie Wu may be just the tip of a melting iceberg.

If Marxists and Communists infiltrate local government establishment and Dennis Rooker doesn’t acknowledge their presence, do the infill-traitors still pose a threat?