Circumstance saw me without my vehicle for a few days. Deciding to explore the alternatives, I chose to utilize the local transit system, known as CAT, the Charlottesville Area Transit System. I was a far younger man when I last utilized a transit system, in a city of much greater population. The system runs well, was on time, and I found the various points of transfer with other busses, in order to get across town, to be relatively easy. However, what I discovered while on board these busses has forced me to ask a serious question. How can a city municipal government, in the 21^st century, which receives federal funding, be allowed to deny to its employees some of the most simple and basic rights guaranteed to workers by the EEOC and the Department of Labor?

As I was making my travels, I overheard conversations between veteran drivers and those who were apparently being trained. What I heard was incredibly unbelievable. It seems that those individuals behind the wheel, with whom we entrust our lives and safety each and every time we step aboard a CAT bus, are denied the simple ability of having a break in their shift, as well as being denied an allotted time to even eat lunch. All these years, as I have witnessed these busses carrying on around town, I like everyone else no doubt, took for granted that those drivers were extended the same basic privileges as every other worker in the 21^st century. But we would all be wrong. While I can appreciate, from a safety point of view, the disallowance of cell phone and personal audio equipment use, as well as not being allowed to eat or drink while driving, I cannot agree to the other policy. That is the one that does not build into the work schedule of the drivers, an established period of down time, such as a fifteen-minute break in the morning and afternoon, as well as an established period of time that allows the driver to eat a meal.

I made it a point to pay greater attention to the drivers, and indeed, the schedules are so constrictive, that many barely have time to step off the bus to take care of simple basic human bodily functions, much less the luxury of actually eating or drinking.

I can not help but be curious as to the level of Council involvement in CAT transit affairs. Does council reach down into the administrative infrastructure, or does it simply hire folks such as Judy Mueller and trust in their leadership? I do not know how involved City Council currently is involved, but if they are highly engaged I can not help but be curious as to why Council members would abuse CAT employees, forcing them to work under conditions that not even an inmate at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Jail would be legally required work under.

According to one of the drivers, breaks and lunches used to be extended to operators. Indeed, this driver said that they learned all of the routes by having to drive almost every one, as they filled in for the driver at lunch and at breaks. So what happened? How did the policy get eradicated? How can the CAT system and the city, which receives federal funding and it is my understanding, some state funding, not obey the law regarding treatment of city employees? As a taxpaying citizen, I am extremely uncomfortable in having any employee treated in this fashion, in my name.

One driver stated that there is supposedly a provision in the law that does not extend the lunch/break provisions for transit workers. However, he has never seen it in writing, nor does he know the statute number. So, I have to wonder if it really exists.

From simply a safety point of view, it is unbelievable to me that we can force a person to stay in a seat for up to ten hours, maybe more, and not get a chance to partake of nutrition and hydration. Answers need to be provided to these actions, along with a legally sound defense of same.

I would like to see Judy Mueller and all of her administrative staff not eat or drink from the time the go to work, until they get off work, plus two to three hours—the shift time of some drivers. I’ll bet that they could not do it.

Crozetians and Western Albemarleans awoke to welcomed news on December 8, 2011, as the Crozet Gazette and Charlottesville Daily Newspaper reported that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors had voted to direct county staff to send out an RFP, or request for proposal, to build the new Crozet Library.

A part of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library (JMRL)—which is the public regional library that serves the City of Charlottesville, and the counties of Albemarle, Greene, Louisa, and Nelson—the Crozet Library has been in need of expansion for quite some time: the building, which is a former train station in downtown Crozet, is so small that when the library takes inventory of newly released books, staff has to remove an older book from the stacks to make space.  Additionally, in late 2011 the fire marshal determined that no more than 50 people should safely occupy the Crozet Library at any given time.  Library programs, such as lectures, routinely draw crowds of over 50 patrons, so some events have had to be held at the neighboring Crozet Elementary School on Crozet Avenue.

The creation of a new home for the Crozet Library has been on the backburner for years, as the newly designated Library Avenue just south of downtown Crozet has lay vacant for the past two years.  Conservatives, libertarians, and constitutionalists who are upset with the performance of our area public schools and the graduates they are producing should consider lending their support to the JMRL and become library advocates for the following reasons.

First, libraries are overall cost effective and spend far less of taxpayers’ money than the government schools.  For example, depending on what number you look at, the total operating budget for the JMRL is around 6 million dollars per year.  Contrast this to the annual operating budget of the Charlottesville City Schools alone at 69 million dollars, and it is easy to see that libraries are feeding much, much less from the public trough and display greater efficiency for it: in Charlottesville, the average core per-pupil spending is 16,141 dollars per pupil, per year.  This ranks among the highest in the state, yet math and reading scores are serially lagging.  The cost per person who patronizes the library is far less than that, and considering the population it serves, the JMRL is actually among the most heavily used public libraries in America.  Circulation data support this claim.

Also, librarianship as a profession is very rewarding, but is not known for being extremely well-paying, and instances of librarians and library workers milking the system are few and far between.  Contrast this with some public school administrators in central offices who routinely draw six-figure salaries and have little to show for it.

Second, there are far fewer opportunities for socialist indoctrination of area youth in the public libraries.  This community has in recent years unearthed controversies in the public schools, such as the recent Kid Pan Alley episode, and when a high school teacher was caught on camera saying that America should “convert” to socialism!

Here is a more general example: it is a common belief that Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal pulled America out of the Great Depression.  This is what students in high school American History courses by and large “learn” through their reading and instruction.  In reality, this enlargement of the public sector prolonged the misery of the Depression; had the federal government followed a free market direction, the economy would have returned to pre-1929 output in a few to several years.  Due to FDR’s expansionist policies, the Depression did not end until the Second World War.  Teachers may mean well, but they and the history textbooks their school districts adopt do not tell the truth about the New Deal.

I graduated from a public high school in Virginia seven years ago, and it was only afterward when I, as an adult, was able to read up on the Great Depression and American History on my own, using books of my own choosing, rather than the choosing of a group of teachers.  The availability of choice and competition in the free market is far better than a one-size-fits-all textbook.  The Jefferson-Madison Regional Library is a great place to learn about American history by considering a variety of books, not the one book that is given the stamp of approval by public schools.  The library is probably the only place in town where you are guaranteed to find copies of the left-leaning A People’s History of the United States, by Howard Zinn, and its conservative counterpart, A Patriot’s History of the United States, by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen.  It is through our public libraries that some citizens are replacing their indoctrination with an education.

Third, the JMRL boasts a voluminous selection of items that circulate to patrons.  The selection and diversity of items greatly outnumbers even the largest bookstores.  I am aware of libertarian arguments that government should not be competing with the private sector, and frankly, I am sympathetic to libertarian concerns and am willing to listen.  I enjoy patronizing large bookstores such as Barnes & Noble as well as small mom and pop used bookshops. However, I also know that there is more or less a free market in this country – it’s not perfect, but free enterprise is the most productive supplier of human needs and economic justice.  Private booksellers do not seem to have the same selection as public libraries, either because the free market will not allow it, or because private booksellers are unwilling to stock their shelves with the same ferocity.  Public libraries are more likely to possess rare, out of print books that private bookstores do not carry.  This makes visiting the public or university library nearly mandatory for those conducting serious research.

Liberals and progressives praise libraries because they see them as institutions that support democracy, and because libraries are cultural “equalizers.” It is because of public libraries, they argue, that even the poorest among us can have access to books.  Frankly, I am happy that they are happy; however, I have no interest in “spreading the wealth around.”  I have always felt that President Obama has not spent enough time in libraries, and has spent too much time “community organizing.”  I am advocating for public libraries for a different reason, because they are a better and cheaper tool for learning than are public schools.  Thomas Jefferson said that he could not live without books, and a society that is going to march toward freedom and liberty needs to be knowledgeable and well-educated.  I recommend that conservatives and libertarians “grow. learn. connect.” at their library, and I hope you will join me in a library near you!

Note: The author is a Charlottesville resident who works as a library support specialist with the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library.  He has taught math at a public school and has ran for School Board.  Opinions expressed here are his own, and do not necessarily reflect an official position of the JMRL.

The following is a paper I discovered amongst keepsakes of my parents. It was written for a middle school assignment 35 years ago, in the Albemarle County School System. I was given an A+++ at the time. Given the recent Kid Pan Alley “99%” controversy at Albemarle County’s Woodbrook Elementary School

The Magnificent History of the The United States
by Hank Martin

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” –Abraham Lincoln

Upon that proposition, this great land of liberty was founded, and to this day, the persecuted and the weary, look upon our shores with eyes of hope. Let us tell then, the story of this great land, the story of America.

In the beginning, when the freedom of man was but a vision in the hearts of a few, the Pilgrims came to our shores, that they might find a land where God could be worshipped according to a man’s own conscience. Where a man might govern himself, and live in peace and understanding with his fellow man. After they had prayed, they rolled up their sleeves and went to work. The building of America had begun. By the year 1630, thousands of immigrants had followed the paths of freedom, to land in Boston Harbor, in Massachusetts. Yes, the colonies were growing. It seemed a fit and proper time to give thanks to Almighty God. The colonists raised their voices in jubilation.

The new settlements prospered, it appeared that everything was going to be all right, until, the hard won personal rights were pierced with a proclamation. Taxes! Taxes! Taxes without representation! A despised and hated tyranny of the old world, reaching out to the new. Protests! Protests! The answer came swiftly. Soldiers of the king, thundered through the streets in the night. They sought after those considered enemies of the crown. But in a meeting at St. Johns Church, Patrick Henry exclaimed, “Give me liberty, or give me death!”  His speech lighted the torch of liberty.  Soon, the angry colonists were burning the very goods upon which the unjust taxes had been levied. Disguised as Indians, they threw bales of tea into Boston Harbor. The die had been cast. The continental congress met in grave session. The result of that meeting?

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States.

One of the greatest of human documents was forged in the fire of patriotic fervor. It proclaimed these truths as self-evident. That all men were created equal. That they are endowed by their creator  with certain unalienable rights. That among these are the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

In those ringing notes of liberty, as rang out by the liberty bell, a new flag was formed, when Betsy Ross made a new banner of red, white and blue, with thirteen stars, each star a state, and the great battles began.  Under Captain John Paul Jones, the American navy fought on. At Valley Forge, the great strength of George Washington held the army together.  The years of the war were long dark days in the history of our country. Then Washington joined the forces of Lafayette at Yorktown, and a decisive battle was fought. With sudden finality, the war was over. Again the Liberty bell rang out the news. By the grace of God, we had won. We were a nation!

It was decided that this new nation should have laws by which to govern itself.  The constitution of the United States was written. The states agreed. And to certify that these new laws would work for the people, there was added to it, the Bill of Rights.  Freedom of worship. Freeedom of speech, of the press. The right of assembly. James Madison put it this way:

“In approving this Bill of Rights, we have executed the will of the people.”

A mighty lot had been accomplished up to now; we had our freedom, our nation, and our first president, George Washington. In the years that followed, the great era of exploration began. Virginia’s own Thomas Jefferson regarded the maps of the day, and he had an idea about all of that land west of the Mississippi. The French agreed to sell the Louisiana territory to the United States for approximately four cents per acre. With fitting and proper ceremony, the Stars and Stripes were hoisted over the vast and fertile land.

The war of 1812 burst upon our shores with brisk and sudden fury.  A test by fire for so young a nation.   But Andrew Jackson was there, with his homespun men of the backwoods.  In Baltimore Harbor, the guns of Ft. McHenry blazed defiantly.  It was here, that Francis Scott Key, watching the battle through the night, wrote a song which he called, “The Star Spangled Banner.” In two years, the war came to an end, and Francis Scott key was a good prophet, our flag was still there.  We still had our nation, and now we had a song for our people to sing. Our national anthem.

It then seemed expedient to consider all those people who lived with us as our good neighbors in this hemisphere. And to give warning to foreign powers and foreign aggressors, for that time, and ever after. James Monroe read the text to John Quincy Adams:

We owe it, therefore, to candor, and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers, to declare, that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere, as dangerous to our peace and safety.

The Monroe Doctrine was a bulwark to further protect the principles upon which this country was founded. Thus ensued the great era of expansion.

In the Mexican campaign, Texas was won. Then we acquired the vast territories of California and Oregon. From California, the cry of GOLD! Was heard around the world. From every way the wind blows, adventurers raced to the prosperous bonanza.  But again, storm clouds were gathering over our republic, as the northern and southern states of our union, took issue with the direction our government was heading. Cries of Secession were heralded, as unjust northern tariffs were placed southern businesses, and other attempts to subvert individual states rights were promoted. The union was no longer united. Southern forces were manipulated into firing upon Ft. Sumter. This was no war of foreign aggression. Both Northern and Southern Forces believed their cause to be just.  Ultimately, the N

Northern forces would win, but there was little celebration by either side, just a sigh of relief that the struggle had come to an end.

Now began the great era of reconstruction and development. Lumbering prairie schooners rolled over the plains. Lusty bustling western towns sprang up in hundreds of places.  A huffing puffing symbol of technological progress marked a new trail with timbers and black smoke.  Long, spike settled rails now spanned the continent.  The iron horse had now brought together, the east and the west.  The conquest of the mountains, and the deserts and the prairies was concluded. But the age of hatreds of the old world were again reaching out, to embroil us in conflict.

The U.S.S. Maine was sunk in a Cuban Harbor. Teddy Roosevelt and his rough riders charged up San Juan Hill.  In one of the shortest wars in American history, Teddy said goodbye to his men and, fulfilling his destiny, became President of the United States. He never ceased fighting for what he believed to be right.

The twentieth century was growing up when Woodrow Wilson became president, but his years in office were overshadowed by that great human sacrifice known as World War One.  Soon after his second term commenced, the policy of “hands off” could no longer be tolerated. The war message was read in congress on April 2, 1917. Two million American men crossed the ocean, to invade the invader. Many battlefields and many townsfolk knew of their courage. And finally, when the strange hush of peace sprouted forth, they went home.  Some were laid forever in Flanders Field.  And we believed that war was a war to end war.

So we started to build. Bigger than ever before. AMERICA! Rising in miraculous monuments of stone and steel.  The tallest buildings in the world. Bridges expanding to cross whatever body of water we anted to cross. Mighty dams bringing new life to arid waste lands, and electric power to the rural countryside. Millions of miles of roads and highways. Oil derricks crowning the arteries of black flowing gold. Farmers plowing with tractors. Cities a symphony of automobiles.  Yet, in all of our prosperity, we failed to heed the venomous voice that was slithering across Europe. We watched again, as Hitler and Tojo ignited another conflagration amongst  the nations of the old world. Thus we had conscription, a peace time draft. But no one really believed it would happen again. That belief was rudely shattered on a Sunday morning in Pearl Harbor. Under Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s admimistration, the minds and hearts were quickly united against the tyrannical forces of the axis powers, and to work together as one, until that moment when the despots of tyranny were destroyed.

Such industry as the world has never seen sprang to life. Shoulder to shoulder, the workers of America banned together on the home front. Twenty four hours everyday, the factories filled the sky with the smoke and fire of defiance. Ringing steel and grinding wheels. Hammers and anvils, welding machines, made up the war time sounds of freedom at home.

Over vast areas of far away waters, our armed forces challenged the enemy.  One by one, we moved through the islands of the pacific. The pace was heartbreaking. Never before had a series of invasions been made so far from home. As landing craft chugged forth to deposit their cargos of brave and determined men, our planes blasted the enemy from their secret hideouts, and shot their planes from the sky. The great battles at sea held a proud and honored place in our history.  Admiral Nimitz was there, with his ships and men. It was an all American team, made up of the Navy, the Army, the Air Force and the Marines.

In distant Africa, our men were fighting side by side with the British and the French. In Italy, we were battling the hated hordes of Mussolini.  In Germany, the spirits of the captive Jew’s in the concentration camps heard the ever increasing roars of our bombers. The war was coming back to the enemy now.  Hitler had said “No Bomb will ever drop on German soil!” But they were falling like rain and like thunder. Then, one early morning on the English Channel, a great secret was made know to all. Invasion. The landing on Omaha beach was a masterpiece of coordination and precision, taking us into fortress Europe on that stretch of sand.

In the months that followed, the irresistible might of our armed forces grew more evident each day.  They swept across France, driving the enemy before them.  Our planes, like avenging eagles, blasted the Luftwaffe out of the sky, or shattered enemy planes on the airfields, far within the German border. Everything within the evil Reich that moved was halted.  Day by day, the land forces drove steadily to the Rhine. General Patton reached the river with his Third Army, and moved on. Our great military leaders, Marshall, Arnold, Eisenhower, pushed our troops forward to the final phase of the conflict.  In a narrow corner of West Berlin, what was left of a once arrogant German army was put to rout. When we entered Berlin, it was a shambles of broken walls. More than eighty percent of the once great city lay in ruins. A monument to the egotistical ravings of a madman.

With the surrender of Germany, we turned  our unified attention and might to the pacific, where the lines of battle were now close to the shores of Japan. Not long after, the B-29 bomber “Enola Gay” took off from the sands of Okinawa, carrying within it a bomb, the likes of which, man had never before conceived.  As the widening circle of death extended out over Hiroshima, the atomic age was written into the history books of man.  A second atomic bomb was dropped, and within a week, the Japanese surrendered. General Douglas MacArthur accepted the surrender from the Japanese emissaries, on the deck of the U.S.S. Missouri, in Tokyo Bay.  And so ended the Second World War. As before, the soldiers and sailors came home, or slept forever in a foreign land.

The question now, what should be done, what could be done, to protect ourselves from man’s inhumanity to man?  The United Nations charter was signed in San Francisco. But in the months and years to follow, we came to understand the meaning of a new kind of war. The cold war. We were forced to recognize that in some parts of the world, hate and oppression are still malignant. Therefore, the Atlantic pact was signed by President Truman. And the representatives of twelve nations. A pledge of mutual defense against any aggressor who would break the peace.

Today in America, we still hold to the principles upon which our nation was founded. We have numerous altars of all religions. We are still governed by the same constitution our founding fathers created for us. The Bill of Rights is still working for the people. We think, we speak, we act, freely. However, we are ever mindful that our rights must never be misused as a mask for treason. We are a bigger, a stronger, a greater America, than ever before.  We have been victorious in six bitter wars in defense of our birthright. Let those who would destroy us, read our history well and take warning.  It is written in the blood of our heroes that freedom shall not perish from the earth.

There are many facets of the recent debacle associated with the recent “Occupy Charlottesville” which will no doubt be a matter of prescient debate for many weeks and months to follow. As it should be. However, I feel that there is core principle which has been overlooked, yet it is the very essence of what America is all about. It is an intricate portion of the ideological rock upon which this nation was founded, and as such, without it, our constitution can not and will not survive.

America is not simply a geographical location. It is not a mere happenstance of mountains and rivers and other natural resources. Beyond all of that, America is as much a place in one’s heart and mind, as it is a land that exists between Canada and South America. Given the right education and understanding of the history and philosophy of our founding fathers, I dare say a group could fly to the moon or Mars, and rightfully establish America anywhere. What is the essence of this ideal called America? It is in its respect for the rule of law. Previously, the citizens of America could trust that, just as the statue indicates, justice is blind as she holds the scales in balance. However, when the rule of law is no longer upheld, then the trust of the public is destroyed. With the erosion of that trust, goes the bedrock in which the pillars of our republic have been inserted.

Our founding fathers recognized the importance of good laws, but even more so, they were cognizant that good laws were preferable, but good men were better. This is where the notion of the Oath of Office came into being. Not just federal office’s, but for all offices. From the president down to the local dogcatcher. Why? Because our founding fathers knew that for our republic to survive, its officers must, for the good of “WE THE PEOPLE” pledge their allegiance to the constitution, or rather “The Law of the Land.”

Therein lies what causes me concern in the “Occupy Charlottesville” incident. I am not going to attempt to dissect the reasoning of the OC members, or whether or not you are in agreement with their stance. What I do take issue with, is the manner in which they were allowed to, for a time, break the law. What causes alarm is the capricious manner in which political bodies selectively choose to enforce regulations already on the books. What is an oath? An oath is a statement of fact or a promise calling upon something or someone that the oath maker considers sacred, usually God, as a witness to the binding nature of the promise or the truth of the statement of fact. To swear is to take an oath, to make a solemn vow. The essence of a divine oath is an invocation of divine agency to be a guarantor of the oath taker’s own honesty and integrity in a matter. By implication, this invokes divine displeasure if the oath taker fails in their sworn duties. It therefore implies greater care than usual in the act of the performance of one’s duty.

These days, the importance of law enforcement can not be underestimated. Police officers take risks and suffer inconveniences to protect the lives, defend civil liberties, secure the safety of fellow citizens, and they endure such risks and tolerate such inconveniences on behalf of strangers. Consequently, police work is one of the more noble and selfless occupations in society. Making a difference in the quality of life is an opportunity that policing provides, and few other professions can offer. A public affirmation of adhering to an Oath of Honor is a powerful vehicle demonstrating ethical standards. The following is the   Law Enforcement Oath of Honor, and is generally utilized and accepted by police departments throughout the United States. It reads as follows:

On my honor,
I will never betray my badge,
my integrity, my character,
or the public trust.
I will always have
the courage to hold myself
and others accountable for our actions.
I will always uphold the constitution
my community and the agency I serve.

So what is my point? When city council refused to do their job, and ordered the police NOT to fulfill their duty, the police chief should have ignored this order, for it was not constitutional. It is the duty of the police to enforce and execute the law as it currently exists! Perhaps city council sympathized with the plight of the protestors. Perhaps some even firmly believed, erroneously, in the rightness of their cause. It matters not. City council is elected to uphold the laws of the community. Now, perhaps they want to change those laws. Fine. But do so by following the rules of proper legislation. And if city council can not or will not fulfill their constitutional duties, then the checks and balances system falls into place.

So, how should have this recent scenario played out, if we had individuals in authority who had the grit to fulfill their responsibilities? When Occupy Charlottesville initially commenced breaking the law, the Charlottesville Police Department should have executed the law as it was currently on the books, and expelled them from the park utilizing whatever means necessary. When the police department was instructed to violate their sworn duties to the community and to the rule of law by council, the police department should have ignored the order and performed their duties. If council wanted to allow the activities that ultimately ensued, then an emergency council session should have been held, and the current rules and regulations amended in the proper legislative order!! The OC individuals should have been disallowed presence in Lee Park, or any other park, until city council, having taken the proper steps and in the proper order, effects a publically approved change to policy regarding to the rules and regulations of public parks.

Rules and laws are given to us in order to prevent chaos and to allow domestic tranquility. They are meant not to hold us back, but to establish order to support our lives and make them better. I recall the example of a kite. A father and son went kite flying on a windy day. The wind was strong, and soon the kite soared higher and higher. Within just a short while, they had let out all their line, and the kite was just a small dot in the sky. The boy, caught up in the excitement of flying the kite, asked his dad, “Isn’t the string holding the kite down? If we let go of the string, will the kite not go even higher?” To this the dad replied. “No, it’s just the opposite. It is the string that holds the kite up. If we let go of the string, the kite would fall to the ground and be forever lost.”

Sometimes we see rules and laws in the same manner. Some think that they hold us back, when in truth, they are the very thing that holds our society up. We have a free society because of these rules and laws, and because people obey and respect these laws. These laws are in place and are enforced to protect the people. A great danger is to think that disobeying the laws will give us more freedom. Instead, it is through disobedience that innocent people are hurt and suffer. When our governing officials fail to properly represent and uphold the law, then the last line of defense against societal chaos rests in the police. When they choose to wrongly place their allegiance to an individual, or group of individuals who are governing in error, rather than following the rules set forth by our forefathers, they start to cut the cord of trust in the flight of this kite we know as our republic. How many more cuts of trust, such as the recent OC incident, can this delicate cord of order withstand, before we too see our republic fall and be lost forever? How long can we violate the constitution, before we successfully destroy it? I fear we will soon have the answer.

27% live in poverty
One-party tyranny
Low paying jobs
Occupy Cville mobs
Cost of living through the roof
Power elite, arrogant and aloof

World Class, my a$$

Wasteful art in place
Disrespect for the black race
Public housing disgrace

World Class, my a$$

Former mayor beats his wife
Lacrosse player takes a life
Feel good, checkbook philanthropy
Blood money from Albemarle County

World Class, my a$$

Sister cities number three
Self-satisfied as can be
Self-designated “World Class” city
City-County enmity
$7 million to re-brick the Mall
Christmas bonuses for all

World Class, my a$$

School system failing AYP stings
Tablets forced on parents with costly strings
Millions wasted to reconfigure schools
School board is ship of fools

World Class, my a$$

UVA, arrogance beyond compare
Pay up or sit elsewhere
Health System doesn’t care
Serpentine walls
Know-it-alls

World Class, my a$$

Landmark eyesore
Bureaucrats spending galore
City Manager over his head
Good thing Mr. Jefferson is dead

World Class, my a$$

We had a night to remember at the abortuary on Commonwealth Drive…just around the corner from the Pregnancy Centers of Central Virginia.

Normally one or two pro lifers show up with their signs and their prayers. Today the parking lot was already half filled by the time the first pro lifer arrived. It’s easy to get discouraged and today looked like it was going to be another long night… but that is not what God had planned. Today was going to be different because the silent cries of the unborn were not only heard by God, but there was a response by his faithful servants.

Their names are not as important as their mission, but maybe you know them? Chaney, Avery, Martha, Christina, Steve, Katarina, and Lauren all gave up their evening to serve God on a very special night. A night that would reveal the weakness of men and the strength of God.

It started when Martha walked up the abortion clinic driveway which is shared by an accountant’s office next door and stood on the edge of the accountant’s grass. She invited the others to join her and quickly they formed what appeared to my eyes to be a pro life line of defense. The previous week the accountant had given Martha permission to stand on his land to reach out to mothers and fathers considering abortion. The clinic staff were furious and had been complaining about the presence of persistent pro lifers who refused to walk away or give ground.

And today was no different. The clinic staff came out and Martha told them they had permission to be there, but the permission wasn’t simply from the accountant.  Pro lifers had answered the call long before that accountant knew of their existence. Their permission was of a spiritual nature — they had permission from God who calls us to serve in Him a fallen world on the sidewalk and driveway of an abortion clinic that to the untrained eye looks like an ordinary house.

The staff didn’t take matters into their own hands just yet… instead they decided to call the police.

And soon four police cruisers were on site, but those courageous pro lifers didn’t surrender. Instead they all knelt and began to pray. It was beautiful to see courage in the face of conflict. The headlights of one of the police cars was shining on them as passersby in cars craned their necks to see what was going on in the abortuary parking lot, but those police headlights did not shine nearly as brightly as the light of God’s spirit in that parking lot.

That spiritual light burned so bright that not even the abortionist could ignore it. And we’re not talking about just any abortionist.

The abortuary is owned by Dr. William Fitzhugh who has been performing abortions across the state of Virginia for decades and has been a leading advocate for partial birth abortion, even going so far as to be a named plaintiff in a federal lawsuit to keep partial birth abortion legal.  Last year his clinics stole the lives of 3,733 innocent Virginians … 415 were babies from the Charlottesville community.

The clinic staff were hoping the police would solve their problem and remove these pro lifers from the premises.

The police called the accountant to confirm that he had given the pro lifers permission to stand on his property — not only did they have permission to stand on the grass but according to the police the dividing line was the middle of the driveway! The pro lifers could now stand even closer than they had imagined. As time wore on post abortive mothers and fathers began to walk toward their cars with pro lifers praying and holding signs closer than they had ever been in the history of the spiritual battle for life in Charlottesville. They were so close they could see the pain and the shame in the eyes of the mothers and fathers.

Those moms and dads were told that God loved them and could heal them. They were told about ministries that were waiting for them such as Rachel’s Vineyard.

This would have been a miraculous night if nothing else happened, but God was just getting warmed up. The doctor who had ignored too many pro lifers to count was suddenly acutely aware of their presence outside of his clinic. He walked out of the abortuary in scrubs and stood on the back porch of the house where thousands upon thousands of innocent lives have been stolen and looked at the pro lifers who could be seen from the back porch for the first time in his career aborting babies in Charlottesville.

And then Dr. Fitzhugh heard the same words he’d been hearing for weeks, “It’s not too late to change!”

But unlike all of those other days when he dismissed the pro lifers and went about his grisly work, today he responded to those words and walked toward them. “I’m sorry, I didn’t catch that?”

“It’s not too late too change!”

He shook his head and walked closer still, “I didn’t catch that?”

“It’s not too late to change!”

Closer and closer… and the words were repeated over and over until he was face-to-face with the pro lifers who were still standing there late into the night.

“You shouldn’t be bullying people out here!” Dr. Fitzhugh said with as much courage as he could muster, but he wasn’t dealing with his office staff or lukewarm Christians. He was standing nose-to-nose with servants of God who were sent to rescue the unborn, their parents, and him.

He was shown the picture of a baby in the womb and reminded that his job is to dismember babies who are defenseless against him and that is the definition of a bully. “I’m not a bully! I’m here to help women.” He retorted.

Dr. Fitzhugh, like so many other misguided physicians, has deluded himself into believing that abortion is good for women. Even when it was pointed out that a woman had left his clinic five minutes ago who was obviously in great pain and suffering he didn’t break from the script. A few moments later he was presented with another more powerful example when he was asked about a young Muslim man who was in his clinic last week begging and pleading with his girlfriend to spare their baby. That young man had come out three times to talk to the pro lifers who did their best to encourage him and told him to go in back in and rescue his child and tell his girlfriend that God loved her and that he loved her too.

We never shared that story because it was so painful.

When that young man drove into the clinic parking lot the look in his eyes are forever etched in my memory. I don’t know if words can adequately capture it, but I imagine it’s how I would look if I were lost at sea and drifting on an old piece of wood after giving up any hope of rescue — and then opening my eyes and seeing the distant outline of land. Hope… that is what I saw in his eyes.

He didn’t even bother to go into the clinic — he went straight to the pro lifers who were standing on the sidewalk and in tears he asked if they thought he was going to hell. He stated that he knew his girlfriend was going to hell, but he wasn’t sure if he would go there since he had tried everything to save his baby. He took all of the pro lifers literature and listened to their suggestions and went into clinic three times to save his baby.

And three times he came out unsuccessful and frustrated. I remember the sound of the abortuary door slamming shut after his third attempt and the look of disgust on his face as he sat on the steps and pondered the impending death of his baby. I was also feeling frustrated that nothing was working. Earlier in the day a pro lifer said with 100% confidence, “We don’t have to worry… God has this one under control. I don’t know why… but he does… it’s going to work out.”

I wanted to believe it, but after the third time I was running out of words. To be honest, I was running out of hope.  I thought about risking getting arrested and going into the abortuary myself and talking to his girlfriend directly. Maybe if I could look into her eyes she would know that her baby would be cared for even if it was a complete stranger. I asked God for a special intervention… even though I knew that God loves all of his children equally and is no respecter of persons.

I wanted to tell the world about the miracle of a young man who had friends he had never met waiting for him at the abortuary. I wanted to see the smile on his face and her face… but that’s not what happened. He went in a fourth time and we waited, and waited, but he never came out again. Finally we went home disappointed that we didn’t get to see a miracle that night, but we knew there would be other nights — even if we would never be able to erase the memory of a young man desperately trying to save his baby with the help of pro lifers who were praying and advocating with every gift God had given them.

I walked away that night convinced that somehow we had failed that Muslim boy. The last words I heard him say was that he wanted her to suffer for what she was about to do to their child.

And now we were staring at the doctor who stole that child’s life and played a role in destroying the relationship of a mother and father. I wanted to hear his justification for hurting a man who was powerless to save his child, but I wasn’t prepared for his answer.

“I know exactly who you’re talking about… she didn’t have an abortion that night. She changed her mind.”

Dr. Fitzhugh had no idea what he had just told us. Long after we had given up and gone home to begin the grieving process and question our inability to win the victory — God was still there fighting. And God was victorious.

This abortion story captures the weakness of men. Even when we’re told God has it under control we still manage to see the all ways that it cannot happen. How it’s just not possible. But God is faithful to the very last possible moment even after every human effort up to that point has failed.

The spiritual battle surrounding abortion is just another shining example of how God is triumphant.

“But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.” – Matt. 19:26

I like National Public Radio. I just wish they weren’t getting my tax money.

After the primaries for the 2008 election, The Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics, and Public Policy of The Harvard Kennedy School released a study that showed the media had given measurably more favorable coverage for particular candidates. National Public Radio was no exception.

Nor is this year an exception. Recently on Morning Edition, Andrea Seabrook filed a report on two Republican candidates. According to Ms. Seabrook, there are some Republicans who are anti-science or at least not prone to engage in “evidence based policy making.”

Ms. Seabrook’s concern was first for Michelle Bachman and based on two statements the candidate made, one recently and one in 2009. In the first, Bachman speaks about God trying to send a message to congress given the recent earthquake and hurricane in the D.C. area. An audio clip was played during the report and to me, and apparently everyone in Bachman’s audience, she was making a joke. Seabrook, though, remained skeptical. In the second, Bachman comments on the Swine Flu panic that ensued not long after President Obama took office. The candidate declared it an “interesting coincidence” that the last time there was a Swine Flu panic was during the Carter administration. Presumably, she was hinting at the penchant for Democrats to not let a good crisis go to waste. The reporter pointed out that the first case was actually in 1976 with President Ford in the White House. So, the comment was inaccurate and maybe a little weird, but I don’t recall Ms. Seabrook having any concern during the last primaries about Senator Obama’s claim of having visited 57 states or his belief that if he were elected President, the seas would recede.

The other Republican in science trouble is Texas Governor, Rick Perry. Apparently he questions the extent of human activity on global warming. He said, “Yes, the climate is changing. It has been changing since the Earth began… Scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.” Hmm? That doesn’t seem too extraordinary. But that wasn’t the governor’s only infraction! He also spoke about evolution: “It’s a theory out there that has some gaps in it.” Here, I think Ms. Seabrook was gasping for air, but I’m not sure why she seemed so offended. That he called it a theory? If so, that’s odd. It’s called The Theory of Evolution after all. Or doesn’t she like the ‘gap’ part? But Darwin himself acknowledged the difference (and problem) between micro and macro evolution. Not okay to refer to that as a gap?

Anyway, that got me thinking: Are Democrats really the party of “evidence based policy making?” If so, how do we explain all those counter-productive policy preferences put forth over the years? A few examples…

During the primary debates in 2007, then Senator Obama was asked why he would raise the capital gains tax given that it has, in the past, led to less revenue for government. Even though raising the tax would adversely affect 100 million Americans who own stock, the president responded that he would do it anyway as a matter of fairness. He cited 50 hedge fund managers who were making too much money (in an apparently unfair fashion) as a reason for this. In other words, the President would hurt 100 million citizens and reduce revenue in order to get the 50 rich guys. That doesn’t sound practical or evidence based. It sounds petty and ideological.

Al Gore claimed the seas will rise 20 feet in the next 100 years. The United Nation’s (IPCC Panel) latest report said that it might be more like, well, 18 inches. Either way, the Left proposed the Kyoto Protocol. The environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg, of the Copenhagen Consensus, says two things. First that Al Gore is all about hype. Second, that even if all of the Kyoto Protocol was followed by every country on Earth for the next 100 years, it would postpone the effects of global warming only by 6 years. And that would come at 150 billion dollars per year. He also says that the United Nations figures you could cure every malady on Earth for half that. That’s basic health care, clean drinking water, sanitation, and education to every human being on the planet. Slow global warming by 6 years or, for half the money, provide all that much-needed care to the poorest on the globe. But the Left’s concern curiously remains with Cap and Trade.

How about DDT? Malaria was nearly eradicated from the globe by the 1960′s due to the pesticide’s use. In 1962, Rachel Carson, in her book Silent Spring, predicted that the use of DDT would cause a cancer epidemic that would hit “practically 100 percent” of the human population, and worse yet, would thin out the shells of bird eggs. After seven months and 9,000 pages of testimony, an EPA administrative judge concluded “DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man… DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man… The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife.” Still, in 1972 the pesticide was banned. Today the UN estimates that a child dies every 30 seconds from Malaria. And today, Rachel Carson is still praised by the Left. Evidence based or agenda based?

Unemployment insurance: Google “effect of increasing the length of unemployment insurance” and you will find any number of studies for cities, states, and even nations that show that the longer government provides insurance checks to the unemployed the longer it takes for those people to take a job. In spite of that, Congress has now extended benefits twice to 99 weeks. So if shortening the time frame will push people back to work why have Democrats insisted on the extensions? Evidence and policy once again at odds.

Social Security: An account opened for you and guaranteed by the government to assist you in paying your bills once you have retired. Only there isn’t really an account and the money you get back represents a horrible rate of return as compared with just about any other investment. On top of that, when you die, excess funds that you earned aren’t inherited by your family; rather, they remain with government. And since poorer people die younger than the wealthy, the system is actually regressive. With average life expectancy as it is, we end up with young black men subsidizing old white woman. So why is this considered a third rail in politics? Precisely because it is politics. There certainly isn’t evidence that this system makes any sense economically.

The Left’s list of impractical, illogical, and problem ridden policies is endless: The Square Deal, the New Freedom, the New Era, The New Deal, The Great Society… The mercury-filled light bulb, the living wage, affordable housing, CAFE standards… All flawed. All with unintended consequences. All based on theory or merely a ‘feeling’ that it’s the right thing to do.

So, Ms. Seabrook, is the Left really where you go for evidence based policy?

For the last month, I have been trying to have Narcotics Anonymous (NA) meetings in Housing Unit #1 at the Albemarle Charlottesville Regional Jail (ACRJ). I have met resistance at all levels.

The Program Activity director said point blank, no, to the use of all but a vacant classroom. Due to security reasons, inmates can’t use the classroom alone. But on the other hand, volunteers can come in for church, bible study, etc. You would think that there is more of a security risk where there is a non-inmate surrounded by inmates vs. inmates surrounded by inmates.

Nevertheless, I asked that we be allowed to use the gym. Physical recreation is allowed two hours per day, five days a week—one hour for walking, one for basketball. My request was, and is, for an hour to exercise our minds, working on recovery.

A large number of people are here for drug or alcohol related charges or convictions. What person in their right mind wouldn’t embrace people trying to help themselves with their addiction?

This problem with drug addiction is almost everywhere. Bluefield Police Chief, Harry Cundiff, stated in the Richmond Times Dispatch that 80% of crimes in his town are drug related. I would be the first to say that NA is not a cure-all for drug addicts, but NA is a non-profit fellowship of men and women for whom drugs had become a major problem. We are recovering addicts who meet regularly to help each other stay clean.

To the jail administration: What part of that don’t you understand?

You allow inmates to wax floors in this pod, why don’t you allow inmates to better themselves? And, you don’t have to pay us a $20 canteen bag at the end of the month because recovery is priceless; all we need is an opportunity.

ACRJ administrators, the ball is in your court; don’t drop it.

Self-love is often rather arrogant than blind; it does not hide our faults from ourselves, but persuades us that they escape the notice of others.

—Samuel Johnson

Charlottesville is a proud city. We promulgate all recognitions and making The Street’s top 10 list is no exception.  So, let’s bask in the warmth of our new fame and not worry some nerd may ask questions.

Uh, well . . . Sorry, can’t resist!

A little slow on the pickup, and without citing Newsplex’s scoop two days prior, Charlottesville issued a press release on June 8 accepting accolades from a June 1 article in a publicly traded financial information website. “10 Cities that Embody the American Dream” provides perky travel book vignettes of “livable” and affordable cities with low unemployment rates.

While descriptions of ratios and statistical citations imply a scientific assessment, no statistical techniques, such as weighted sums, are used (understandable since author Jason Notte’s LinkedIn profile lacks any science credentials).  Rather, cities are short-listed to 17 by applying only one factor — their unemployment rate from May of 2011.

Is one month adequate?  Apply the same criteria to another month, say January, and the results change.  Midland (Texas), Honolulu and Charlottesville don’t make the cut.  In fact, Charlottesville only qualified during 2 of the past 24 months, so the survey really should read, “10 Cities that Embody the American Dream During May.” Substantial errors continue with the second criteria, “walkability,” but enough said.

Even if this survey was valid, we still have to question why we didn’t qualify for any of the other superlatives written by Mr. Notte, such as “10 Cities Unaffected by a Bad Economy,” “10 Great Cities to Become a Landlord,” or “10 Craft Beer Destinations.” Patricia Kluge didn’t even make the list of “10 Celebrities Who Lost Big Financially.”  “Winners” aren’t repeated because this reduces the marketing effect of the exercise–Vanity pieces are written to attract the maximum number of narcissistic visitors.

It’s disappointing that our city’s Communications Department failed to identify this article as another top-ten fluff piece commonly used by thousands of sites to increase advertising revenue (users must load a different page with new ads to discover each winner).  Instead, the city compounded the misinformation by dressing up the honor and its conferrer. The city’s press release said the “study considered … quality of life measures … along with a business-friendly environment,” although “business-friendly” wasn’t present in our review.  The city refers to “the editors” rather than attributing the lone author, who also works as a “pundit.”  Finally, the city returns the favor by copying verbatim, without citation, The Street’s accolades of itself from its own corporate page and presents them as a city endorsement.

This small issue doesn’t warrant a retraction, but retaining this piece on the City’s website is more cheesy than “world-class.”

Censor Sherlock Holmes, are they kidding?  The School Board is poised to ban Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes novel, A Study In Scarlet.  The Nazi’s burned books, is that next?  Check out en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings.  I can see it now; soon nothing will be available for our children to read.  Just because one Albemarle County parent did not want her sixth grader, or any other student for that matter, to read the terrible connotations made in the novel, it will be removed from classes unless we act to stop this group of zealots.  Tell us, who are the parents making this claim?  We have a right to know.

As an active and heavily involved Mormon, I’m deeply embarrassed by this action and deeply ashamed that any Mormon parent would ask for this book to be banned.  I think it is a wonderful opportunity for teaching students about controversial viewpoints in classical literature, of which they will be exposed to over the course of their education.  We can’t let this happen. When are the citizens of this country going to respect the Constitutional rights that we have been given?

School Board Chairman, Steve Koleszar was part of the committee that recommended the book be removed.  But we aren’t even told anything about the others deciding the future of our schools.  Just who is on the committee?  Surely they’re not “anonymous”.  Rather than embrace a teaching opportunity, these parents would rather ignore history.

I’m embarrassed by the ignorance expressed by both the parents and the committee; banning books is not the answer.

The words above, even the title, are not mine.  But after reading them, do we need to find out more about these out of control book burning zealots?  Should we demand they show their faces?  Should we approach the only known person on the committee, School Board Chairman Steve Kolezar, and demand answers?  No.

Despite being quoted as a committee member Steve Koleszar wasn’t there.[i] There was no discussion of banning books.  Despite some peoples imagined frenzy, there were no calls for mob justice, no anger, no hidden agendas; there was not even a raised voice in the committee meeting that day.  I know because I was a member of that review committee.  My name is Jim Stern and I was there.  Much of what has been reported is inaccurate and all of it is incomplete; most public comments are even less a reflection of reality.

I hoped the opening paragraphs would catch your attention. But the words above are not mine and come from many sources.[ii] Sentences are combined to read as if written by one person but are the comments of many different people from local news reports, newspaper articles, blogs and the comments people have posted in response.[iii]

Most people in our community are likely unaware, unconcerned or apathetic to the School Board’s vote this Thursday on the future of A Study in Scarlet; others loudly voice opinions on the matter.  Local citizens on the right accuse the committee of impinging on the Constitution and forgetting freedom while those on the left compare us to past book banners and burners. Some local Mormons and a vast majority of the Mormon community outside of Charlottesville do not support the Mormon complainant and express firm, but polite concerns. They worry the Mormon complainant will cause harm to their community not just because they could be labeled as ‘book banners’ but realizing that shielding students may lead to ‘repeating the past’.

I can state with confidence that what has happened in the process of reviewing Doyle’s A Study in Scarlet should cause no alarm.   I am proud of the committee and both the complainant and the teacher who presented their positions on the text.

The committee did the right thing within the confines of our abilities.  That being said, I realize making the right decision is the not the entire story and the committee did not make the best decision.  I am confident that The School Board will make follow the committees lead and are unlikely to reach to achieve the best solution.  Let me explain and I hope together the entire community can come together, support and implement the best decision.

First, the committee was led by Dr. Haas and several other ACPS educators and community members.  One complainant presented the case for removal from the 6^th grade reading list, with a friend there for support who spoke little, if at all.  One teacher presented the case to retain the text on the 6^th grade reading list.  [iv]

We identified several problems as a committee, but only two are worth noting.  Years ago, the educator who approved this text was not as thorough as the Albemarle County Public Schools (ACPS) process required then and now. If the process in place had been followed to the letter back then, I think it would have prevented what has happened now, but there was no malice or agenda.  Secondly, ACPS staff interactions with the student of the complainant (not by the teacher who addressed the committee) were guided by the best of intentions but were not what we would desire in our diverse and accepting school system.  But no blame should be assigned.  Without a comprehensive lesson plan that provided the required knowledge of the treatment of Mormons in this book, adequate guidance was unavailable.

The committee recommended the book be removed from the classroom and remain off the reading list until an adequate lesson plan is developed and in place.  We also stated clearly the book will remain in middle and high school libraries with unfettered student access. It was the lack of the comprehensive lesson plan that compelled this conclusion.

The parent who filed the complaint was well prepared, articulate and reasonable.  She was passionate about her faith and clearly acted on behalf of a child she loved dearly.  The teacher who spoke in response was just as well prepared, articulate and reasonable.  She was passionate about the novel, Sherlock Holmes and her students and clearly acted on behalf of a love of student knowledge.  And all discussion was held without a moment of contention during the entire meeting.

The committee did not ‘ban’ the book and never discussed such an action because the complainant  did not ask for the book to be banned.  Her compliant specifically stated she thought the book was appropriate for high school students. Everyone in and out of the Mormon community expressing fears over this book review does not realize the expert detail of the complainant’s presentation and that she started from the position that no book should be kept from our students.

ACPS does not shy away from tough material but the committee is not in a position to create and implement comprehensive lesson plans.  Faced with hurting the Mormon student and community it was the RIGHT decision to recommend removal from the reading list.

But it was clearly not the BEST decision either.

We hurt one teacher deeply.  The teacher who spoke to the committee loved teaching students this material.  We also hurt all the students who will not get to read this book under her tutelage. We talk about teaching tolerance and understanding but are we willing to do the work required to use this opportunity to demonstrate we stand behind our words?

The committee’s decision means that we will not allow students to read the book with the guidance of a teacher, but we will allow the same student to read the book with no guidance at all.

The BEST solution would be to join together as a community and commit to having this text available to teachers that want to use it by writing the needed comprehensive lesson plans.  Individually, a comprehensive lesson plan cannot be created by the committee, by ACPS, or by the Mormon community.  Alone it is impossible.  But it could be done together.  The entire text contains only a handful of sentences that are an issue.  Still the job would be difficult, but no more so than other texts.  Many controversial texts are already in the hands of our students because of the difficult work done by others before us who did what was required to stop books from moving from the classroom to library shelf and forgotten.

The best solution is not within the reach of the committee or the School Board.  The BEST solution requires us to step up to the task of creating a comprehensive lesson plan.  I believe the parent and teacher that presented to the committee would be among the first to sign on to help.  There must be others willing to save Sherlock Holmes.  But in addition to mystery we can teach values with a proper lesson plan.  There is great power in learning that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle realized later in life that he needed to apologize for his actions and that the Mormons responded with forgiveness.

What happens from here is not under the control of a nameless and faceless committee.  It depends on the face in the mirror. Do you see a face willing to let Sherlock Holmes’ first appearance in text disappear from classrooms just to sidestep difficult issues?  Will you be one of the voices that criticizes the committee and School Board, rather than to get personally involved?   A Study In Scarlet will not be removed from the library shelf but it will sit their moldering unless together we explore the more difficult path.  From Charlottesville to Utah, many argue the book is not ‘good enough’ to expend effort on saving when other Doyle books are available.  The value of a piece of literature may not just be in the text itself.  Greater value may be in the dialogue it compels.  So many Mormon voices have pointed out that if we remove A Study In Scarlet from the classroom, we have squandered the opportunity to teach something special to our students, regardless of religion.

I am hope someone sees a face in the mirror of someone who has been called upon to save this piece of literature, bring communities together and set an example for our students and children that will be remembered throughout their lives.

Sincerely,

Jim Stern (parent of four ACPS children, each an avid and contemplative reader)

End Notes:

I hope no one reads this in haste.  Even if I have a similar viewpoint, nothing in the opening three paragraphs should be taken as my words, feelings or opinion or attributed to me.  The remainder contains my thoughts and mine alone.  I believe that everyone on the committee either would agree with the majority of my comments, but I do not represent my comments as created or approved by the committee.

The recent tour bus accident on Interstate 95 near Kings Dominion has contributed to a particularly bloody period on our nations roadways. In that incident, driver fatigue was cited as the reason for the driver running off of the road, overturning his bus upside down, onto the roof, killing four, and injuring more than two dozen others. Earlier this year, three other tour buses were involved in accidents, which had little to do with unsafe equipment, but everything to do with the one portion of the equation that can not be abused for long, without dire consequences. That portion being the human factor, the bus operator.

As per their government operational norm, senators and congressmen are calling for investigations, strict enforcement of regulations, and possibly new regulations to pile on to those already in existence—all to assure passenger safety. While this is an honorable goal, and like most intents of government, quite lofty in its ambitions, I submit that it is the failure of the federal government in the first place, that has allowed such tragedy to transpire upon our highways. I submit, that had the legislators of years past stood for a commonsense approach rather than bowing to the interests of lobbyists in the transportation industry, these deaths would not have occurred.

First and foremost, there is absolutely no need for any further rules or regulations to be crafted regarding the motor coach industry. The Federal Department of Transportation already has in existence, a book of regulations that cover just about every single issue that could arise and provides explicit contingencies and redundantly excessive languag, in order to control almost every aspect of all commercial vehicle operations. While there are many points that I could take issue with, I would like to keep my comments focused on the concept of driver fatigue. Ultimately, most all other issues can be adequately handled by an alert, fully cognitive operator.

All commercial vehicle operators are closely scrutinized and carefully screened prior to obtaining their Commercial Driver License (CDL). The matter of driver fatigue is extensively and intricately regulated, per Federal DOT guidelines. In order to make the rest of this treatise understandable, here is a brief excerpt from the Federal DOT guide book.

Passenger-Carrying Vehicles

Logging Example #22   (Passenger-Carrying Vehicles)

Violations: There are no violations.

Explanation — 10-Hour Limit: After 8 consecutive hours off duty, the driver was eligible to drive for up to 10 hours beginning at 2:00 a.m., which the driver did. He or she then took another 8 consecutive hours off duty, giving the driver another 10 hours of driving time available.

NOTE: The 8-hour break can be any combination of off-duty and sleeper-berth time, as long as the time is all consecutive and not broken by any on-duty activity.

Explanation — 15-Hour Limit: After 8 consecutive hours off duty, the driver had 15 on-duty hours available at 2:00 a.m. By noon, the driver had used 10 of those hours. The driver then took another 8-hour break, giving him or her another full 15 hours available.

NOTE: The 8-hour break can be any combination of off-duty and sleeper-berth time, as long as the time is all consecutive and not broken by any on-duty activity.

Logging Example #23     (Passenger-Carrying Vehicles)

Violations: There are no violations.

Explanation — 10-Hour Limit: After 8 consecutive hours off duty, the driver was eligible to drive for up to 10 hours beginning at 8:00 a.m. on Day 1. The driver reached the 10-hour driving limit at 6:00 a.m. on Day 2, when he or she stopped driving. The driver then took another 8 consecutive hours off duty, giving him or her another 10 hours of driving time available.

NOTE: Off-duty periods of less than 8 consecutive hours do not result in additional driving time.

Explanation — 15-Hour Limit: After 8 consecutive hours off duty, the driver, at 8:00 a.m. on Day 1, had 15 on-duty hours available during which to drive a CMV. By including only on-duty and driving time in this calculation, the driver reached the 15-hour limit (2 + 4 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 3 + 1 = 15) at 6:00 a.m. on Day 2, when he or she had to stop driving. At that point, the driver continued working for 2 hours, which is allowed as long as there is no more CMV driving. In order to return to driving, the driver needed at least 8 consecutive hours off duty, which was obtained by 4:00 p.m. on Day 2, at which point the driver again had 15 on-duty hours available (10 of which could be driving).

NOTE: Off-duty and sleeper-berth periods, no matter how short, are not included in the 15-hour calculation. In addition, a driver can continue to work beyond the 15-hour limit, as long as there is no more CMV driving.

Logging Example #24    (Passenger-Carrying Vehicles)

Violations: There is a 15-hour rule violation from 10:00 p.m. – midnight.

Explanation — 10-Hour Limit: After 8 consecutive hours off duty, the driver was eligible to drive for up to 10 hours beginning at 2:00 a.m. The driver reached the 10-hour driving limit at midnight, so there are no 10-hour rule violations on this log.

Explanation — 15-Hour Limit: After 8 consecutive hours off duty, the driver, at 2:00 a.m., had 15 on-duty hours available during which to drive a CMV. The driver accumulated 15 on-duty hours (including on-duty and driving time) by 9:00 p.m. The 15-hour rule was violated when the driver drove a CMV at 10:00 p.m. without first having another 8 consecutive hours off duty.

NOTE: Off-duty and sleeper-berth periods, no matter how short, are not included in the 15-hour calculation.

Logging Example #25    (Passenger-Carrying Vehicles)

Violations: There is a 10-hour rule violation from 8:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.

Explanation — 10-Hour Limit: After 8 consecutive hours off duty, the driver was eligible to drive for up to 10 hours beginning at 4:00 a.m. The driver reached the 10-hour driving limit at 8:00 p.m. and violated the rule by continuing to drive for another hour.

NOTE: The 2-hour off-duty period does not provide the driver with additional driving time.

Explanation — 15-Hour Limit: After 8 consecutive hours off duty, the driver, at 4:00 a.m., had 15 on-duty hours available during which to drive a CMV. The driver accumulated just 14 on-duty hours (including on-duty and driving time) by 9:00 p.m., so there were no violations.

NOTE: Off-duty and sleeper-berth periods, no matter how short, are not included in the 15-hour calculation.

All of that having been said, the long and short of it is this, a driver can only drive a maximum of 10 hours per day, and he can not be “On Duty” more than a total of 15 hours per day. Now let us examine how that really works.

The examples, like all things associated with government, are done with the “in a perfect world” notion of thinking. In the real world, applied by real people, trying to run a real business and attempting to generate real revenue, these regulations take on a whole different meaning. And it is here, or rather in the past, when these laws were passed, that those representatives of “WE THE PEOPLE” failed. Had proper concern for public safety been a real priority, and not the priority of generating cash flow for re-election, etc, the guidelines that have been established, would have been far more protective of the passenger. Let me explain. You will note that on all of the aforementioned log examples, there is the first category of “Off-Duty”. While this may seem comfortably safe and secure, the general public must understand that their off the cuff definition of “ Off Duty” is far and removed from the manner in which it is applied in the motor coach industry., “Off Duty” does not mean rest. It simply means that the operator is not engaged in the duties of driving, as defined by the DOT.  To better understand my meaning, allow me to give you a real world example of exactly how dangerously thin the line is, between legal and common sense.

Example:

Tom lives an hour and a half from the bus yard. He must arrive there within a timeframe which allows him sufficient time to pre-trip his bus for safety, per federal DOT guidelines. Generally, this will take twenty minutes. If his scheduled time to depart the yard (the time his driving line commences), is say, 06:00 AM, he must arrive there by 05:40 AM at the latest. He will depart his home at 04:00AM. This means he probably awoke at 02:00 – 02:30 AM. So his feet hit the floor, and he is awake at that time.

His passenger pick-up time is at 07:30AM. So he has driven for 1.5 hours, leaving him now with 9.5 hours of driving time. His duty status changes when he arrives at his pick-up point, to “Off Duty” as he waits for his passengers. Forty-five minutes later, everyone is on board, and off they go. At 08:15, Tom’s status changes to “Driving”. He drives to the amusement park 3.5 hours away.

At 11:45, Tom arrives at the park, and his passengers disembark. His duty status changes to “Off Duty”. The passengers stay at the park until 09:00PM. Tom has had no where to go or nothing to do. Because of regulations legislated by the state of Virginia, state code 46.2-1224.1he can not idle his bus for more than 15 minutes. In other words, during record breaking heat, Tom is cooking in his bus. He has probably opened the windows and the roof hatch, and with a little breeze, the interior of the bus is only 105 degrees. He may have brought a chair and a book, to sit out under the shade of a tree and read for awhile. Whatever, he is hot and more importantly, he is fatigued. He has been “Off Duty” yes, but what were the conditions of his time “Off Duty”? Were they conducive to safety? You be the judge.

Now at 09:30PM after multiple head counts, the passengers are ready to leave. Tom’s duty status goes from “Off Duty” to “Driving”. Yes, he has had 9 hours and 45 minutes off, but again, careful examination of those conditions must be considered.  Yet, amazingly enough, and thanks to past industry lobbying, he is still perfectly legal.

At 9:30PM, Tom starts driving the 3.5 hours back to the point of disembarkation. He is starting the trip after having been awake since 2:00AM; He has now been awake for more than seventeen hours

2.5 hours into the trip, a traffic accident has backed up the highway, and everyone sits for 45 minutes. Tom arrives back to the passenger pick-up point at 01:45AM. He has now been awake for nearly 24 hours, and still has another 1.5 hours to drive back to the bus yard. Arriving at the yard at 03:15AM, Tom will drive another 1.5 hours back to his home, arriving there at 04:45AM

Now his next assignment is to depart the yard at 11:30AM. According to the Federal guidelines, Tom is perfectly legal, as he went to “Off Duty” Status at 3:15, exactly eight hours prior. However, out of those eight hours, three must be subtracted for travel time to and from his home. A fast shower and a quick bite of food, and maybe, just maybe, Tom will get four hours of actual sleep, before he starts a similar schedule again the following day.

These are the types of games that the transportation lobbyists have created. The commercial motor carriers have loopholes big enough to drive a bus, or a tractor-trailer through. This allows the government the ability to state “We care for the traveling public’s safety. Look we have regulations!” However, those regulations have been so weakened and watered down as to be by-and-large, useless. It is important for people to realize, that a driver can be entirely legal, and by the book, and still be dangerous, because he has had no rest. Let’s not kid ourselves; “Off Duty” only means that you are not behind the wheel. It in no way, assures proper rest and cognitive skills. Also, if you are driving a company vehicle, that is not a commercial vehicle, then you are off “Off Duty Not Driving.” Really? This is another way that lets motor carriers get their drivers to pick-up and drop points, without having to subtract hours from their time available to drive. If you are a passenger in that same car, and you are not going to be driving for 8 hours upon arrival to the destination, you are considered to be “Off Duty.”

This properly explains why you see the incidents of seemingly stupid accidents that occur with commercial vehicles. Drivers who have far more training and are under considerably more scrutiny than the bulk of drivers on the road. Yet, you ask yourself, “How’d that guy ever get a commercial license?” It is not that the individual can not properly drive the bus or the truck; it’s the pressure drivers are under from their employers, those same employers who lobbied congress so many years ago.

Tractor-Trailer drivers have it even more difficult. They have the pressure of the DOT regulations to adhere to, as well as the pressure that their dispatchers create when Google Maps says a load can be delivered withinin a certain time frame. Again, that is only in a perfect world, free of traffic incidents and weather, mechanical problems, etc. Consider a community like Charlottesville-Albemarle. On a good day, it can take a tractor-trailer operator more than an hour to get from the north side of town, to the interstate. Is it any wonder we see frustrated semi-drivers plowing through red lights? Yes it is wrong. Yes, it is illegal. However, when one considers all of the pressures that the operator is under, is it not somewhat understandable? There are so many other scenarios that can be listed, but I think the reader gets the picture. Our legislators have already put their hand in this pot, and it is sadly regulated.

How can it be remedied? It is really quite simple. The rule needs to be as follows. In any combination of “Off Duty” “Driving” etc. The individual can not be AWAKE for more than 15 hours. Motor and passenger carriers must either provide lodging, (easily done for semi operators with sleeper cabs) or sufficient time between runs, to allow a full eight hours of sleep for the operator. You can bet, that at the current lodging rates, drivers will not want to pay, nor should they have to. It should be incumbent upon the employer to make sure that all employees are on the road in a safe and rested condition.

For semi drivers, eliminate the idea of paying by the mile. Pay a salary to the driver, and do not promise cargo delivery without allowing time for Murphy’s Law. It is not complicated at all. It is what should have been done from the start.

As long as passenger and motor carriers look at loss of life and property in a statistical manner, such losses will continue to be viewed as they are currently: “The price of doing business.” And as long as our alleged representatives allow such gaping loopholes in a system designed to save lives—these, coupled with an economy that is  driving more people to choose buses as an alternative to air or rail travel—while simultaneously pushing business owners to do more with less, we must expect to see more death and destruction on our roads for some time to come. So the next time you or a loved one steps up on a bus, the most cogent question you can make of the operator is “How long have you been awake?” The answer, if honestly given, might be shocking and surprising.

In the first part of its June 8 work session, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (BOS) heard reports and comments from Staff and County Executive Thomas Foley. The BOS then followed by asking questions and, on a few occasions, TJPDC Executive Director Stephen Williams rose to offer answers. The BOS asked for clarification regarding the status of the 1998 Sustainability Accords—specifically, its relation to the HUD Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant application and the Livable Communities Planning Project. In his answer, Mr. Williams called the Accords merely a “historic document” (echoing a phrase previously coined by Supervisor Dennis Rooker), and added that the Accords was submitted to HUD only as an “advisory” piece. I interpreted this statement to imply that, in current function and relevance, the Accords was an antiquated document bearing little to no consequence on current or future comprehensive plans.

I disagreed with this characterization because it is incongruous with the documentation of the grant application posted on the “Many Plans, One Community” web site (the informational hub for the Livable Communities Planning Project operated by the TJPDC itself). There, the Accords are NOT simply a “historic document” but identified on the first page of the application in the Application Abstract as follows:

“The existing Regional Plan for Sustainable Development in the Charlottesville/Albemarle metro area is the Sustainability Accords.” (http://1-community.org/PDF/application/1-Applicant%20Abstract.pdf)

The existing Regional Plan IS the Sustainability Accords.

Furthermore, as reported in an article written by Sean Tubbs in the November 24, 2010 edition of Charlottesville Tomorrow:

“Stephen Williams, the TJPDC’s executive director, said the money will be used to implement the Sustainability Accords which were developed by the Thomas Jefferson Sustainability Council and signed by regional governments in 1998.” (http://cvilletomorrow.typepad.com/charlottesville_tomorrow_/2010/11/mpo-november2010.html)

Stephen Williams said the money will be used to implement the Sustainability Accords.

So during the first break, I walked up to Mr. Williams in a cordial manner and extended my hand to shake his while introducing myself. We exchanged pleasantries—I told him I regretted not meeting him in person until now, and that I had heard him speak at a few of the BOS meetings I attended in the last few months. He acknowledged seeing me and listening to me there as well.

Then I proceeded to tell him what prompted me to approach him was the characterization of the Accords he gave to the BOS. I explained how the Accords is not just an “historic document” because it was clearly presented to HUD in the grant application as the existing plan…that the Accords along with the Charlottesville Regional Sustainability Implementation Plan (which employs ICLEI’s “Five Milestone Process”) were the foundational documents submitted to HUD as criteria to be judged in consideration for the grant request…and that HUD has every reason to expect that its $999,000.00 grant will be spent by the consortium to build upon and implement what was depicted in the foundational documents.

I said that many of the Jefferson Area Tea Party’s concerns for the Livable Communities Planning Project are rooted in the language in the Accords—especially regarding, but not limited to, human population—and what it commits our community to implementing per HUD’s expectations. In conclusion, I asked that if I prompted his recollection of the description of the Accords as the existing plan in the Application Abstract, would he please amend his previous statement to the BOS about its status after the break.

At this point, he conceded that I may be correct about the status of the Accords as stated in the Application Abstract (as referenced in the first sentence of the audio file transcript below)—but then he abruptly switched his argument in an effort to trump my contention by other means.

[Unbeknownst to me, a recording device belonging to a WCHV radio reporter picked up the next part of our conversation (see below for full audio clip). The following is a transcript of that audio file.  Italics and underlines are added in an effort to depict vocal emphasis]:

Williams: ….that may also be true, Ms. Thorpe.

Thorpe: Good.

Williams: But there is no legal standing for a Sustainability Plan because there is no legal requirement for one.

Thorpe: Perhaps not, sir,

Thorpe: but when you submitted that to the Federal government

Williams: It is simply advisory to these folks…

Thorpe: and said this is our current plan, this is what we want to implement or build on -

Williams: …advisory document

Thorpe:—that’s what you said to the Federal government.

Williams: …advisory document, Ms. Thorpe

Thorpe: Well, that’s your interpretation.

Williams: …advisory document only, it’s not my interpretation, that’s the LAW.

Thorpe: I know word for word what TG (a “G” that I incorrectly spoke for a “J” in TJPDC as I became flustered by his tone)—

Williams: I’m sorry that you don’t understand the law, Ms. Thorpe,

Thorpe: I’m reading the document that’s on your web site, sir.

Williams: and that’s been demonstrated on a number of the other things you’ve said (then unintelligible)

Thorpe: Well, I’m—no, I’m, I’m speaking about one specific item. It says it on your web site—that was sent to HUD. Folks, “this document is our current plan”, so HUD looks at it and says this is the current plan—very good, I guess this is what you’re wanting money to implement and build on…that’s why they, that’s why they’re cutting the million dollar check. Anyway…

Williams: No, I’m afraid that’s not true.

Thorpe: No, I’m afraid it is. I’m afraid it is. We can agree to disagree -

Williams: I’m afraid that’s YOUR interpretation, Ms. Thorpe

Thorpe: We can agree to disagree, and I’m looking at the documentation on your web site.

Williams: — and I’ve got to say, I understand this quite a bit better than you do.

Thorpe: Oh, really?

Williams: Yes.

Thorpe: Very good. Then why is it you said that ICLEI, you didn’t know anything about ICLEI, and yet this six—you know, these ”Products”—have you compared it to the “Five Milestone Plan” in ICLEI, sir?

Williams: Ah, you know, I looked at the “Five Milestones”

Thorpe: You don’t know where the language comes from, you don’t even know what you’re talking about, you don’t know where the language comes from. You keep (saying) – ICLEI never went to TJPDC

Williams: No.

Thorpe: But it’s language -

Williams: No.

Thorpe:—and the implementation of it’s “Five Milestone Process” is in the County document which has seeped into your grant application.

Williams: You know why that is, Ms. Thorpe? Because those are basic planning principles, any grad student in planning at any school from the country could tell you that stuff, that’s in the basic curriculum.

Thorpe: You can — sir, you can speak, you can try to demean and speak that way if you like. All I can tell you is what I see

Williams: Ms. Thorpe…

Thorpe: on your web site, what’s in those documents.

Williams: You…

[End of audio file]

Unfortunately, the audio file ends here because the WCHV reporter took the recording device away for the impending resumption of the meeting. During this exchange, Mr. Williams stepped in toward me, stood intrusively close (I estimate there were no more than eight inches of space between our torsos), and used his significant height advantage to bend over the top of me then lower his face only four or five inches from mine, positioning us nose to nose.

By anyone’s definition of physically “getting in one’s face”, that’s exactly what he did. It made me, as it would make anyone, extremely uncomfortable. But I held my ground there for quite a while, not wanting to concede to him the satisfaction of intimidating me.

However, as he continued speaking I eventually lifted my right hand up in between our faces with my palm facing (but not touching) him. I looked into his eyes over the tops of my fingertips and when he finished speaking, I told him he was making me uncomfortable and invading my personal space. I asked him to please step back, but he didn’t budge from his position and asked “Why?” in an intense, snide tone. I told him again he was invading my space and I asked him a second time to please step back. Mockingly, he said, ”Why should I do that? I like talking to you this way!” To break the physical stalemate, I took a big step backward then we resumed verbal sparring about the Accords as we backed away from each other towards our seats.

When I returned to my seat, I told some of the people sitting around me about the unprovoked, physical imposition I had just received from Mr. Williams. I then quieted down as the meeting resumed. During the next break, I told Supervisor Ken Boyd about the incident—and I was also prompted by one of my friends to tell it to Supervisor Rodney Thomas when he came over to speak to a group of us at the end of the meeting.

After 9:00 a.m. the next morning (Thursday), I received an e-mail from a member of the JATP steering committee who had left the meeting shortly following the end of the first break. She wrote to tell me her attention was drawn to Mr. Williams’ confrontation of me and she walked over to stand behind me about halfway through the incident and witnessed it from then to the end. While the confrontation was going on, I didn’t realize anyone I knew had come over to observe because in the heat of the moment, the only thing that had my attention was his face in mine. Later that afternoon, I called her to elaborate on what she witnessed without my input and she recounted the incident to me just as it happened.

Also early that morning, Rob Schilling called me in response to a mass E-mail I sent out a few hours earlier announcing the JATP victory in getting ICLEI kicked out of Albemarle County. He wanted more information about the meeting, knowing that I stated in my letter I had stayed there from beginning to end. Among everything else, I told him what happened with Mr. Williams. Rob offered to contact him to ask for his side of the story with an invitation to appear on his radio show with or without me to discuss it. I told Rob that I did not object to his inquiry.

Roughly an hour later, Rob advised me that Mr. Williams wrote him to deny my allegations. By doing so, Mr. Williams unfairly impugned my integrity by suggesting I was a liar. And as someone who is honest and has demonstrated her seriousness for responsible leadership of the JATP, I decided was not going to allow him to do this without my response.

On Friday, I proceeded to report this incident to the TJPDC Planning Commission Board. I left phone messages with Supervisors Ann Mallek and Dennis Rooker to call me because I could not locate contact information for the Chairman of the Board (they are both the BOS representatives on the Planning Commission Board). Supervisor Rooker called me back first and I told him what happened. He gave me the name and phone number of the TJPDC Board Chairman, with whom I spoke later that evening.

So why should all of this matter to anyone?

Of course, this incident is yet another example of the rude behavior displayed by Sustainability advocates towards Sustainability opponents at the BOS work session as I described in Part I of my Guest Editorial. And in honesty, I want to defend my honor and get the apology from Mr. Williams that I feel I deserve. But it is about substantially more than this. Mr. Williams’ position and responsibility as a public official elevates this incident to being one of potential interest and concern to the public and the TJPDC.

After consideration, I decided that both should be made aware of the disturbing behavior I experienced from Mr. Williams. I know that he does not have a positive opinion of me and the JATP because he told me so. We are a source of frustration for him because our continuing opposition to the Livable Communities Planning Project has not made his job any easier. That is understandable.

But during his disagreement with me, Mr. Williams went well beyond the standard voice raising and benign changes in posture (such as hands placed on hip or pointed fingers) that usually occurs when two people are engaged in a dispute. In my opinion, he grossly crossed the line of typical response when he deliberately and menacingly imposed his physical stature in a posture intended to demean, intimidate, and bully a woman. This is reprehensible and inexcusable behavior, which not only oversteps the bounds of civil discourse and common courtesy, but unforgivably breaches the professionalism we should all expect from a public official. While Mr. Williams may not have liked the information I brought to discuss with him, I brought it to him in a respectful manner and I did nothing to instigate nor merit what I consider his unconscionable treatment of me.

I am completely confident in my interpretation of his actions and his intent behind them. I cannot abide a bully and I believe the best way to discourage bullying behavior is to confront it and seek proper punishment for the offender. It is my intention to file a formal complaint with the Planning District Commission and bring this matter before the TJPDC at their next Board meeting in August. I will be seeking a public apology from Mr. Williams and ask the Planning Commission Board to take disciplinary action against Mr. Williams commensurate with the seriousness of his actions.

Listen to Carole Thorpe’s interaction with TJPDC Executive Director, Stephen Williams: