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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Show as slideshow]

[View with PicLens]

I judge the two preeminent interviews that Rob has completed as of late, to be the ones with Michael Del Rosso and Jim Patterson. In both, the guests made it more than copiously clear, that in the face of America’s current narcissism, where we seem totally captivated with either money, (the economy), or sex, (the contraception debate), that during all of this, is the seemingly abject failure by most all of our elected representatives, to adequately address foreign policy. Or rather, the failure of the politicians to permit the military to do its job, and to hold sacrosanct, the concept that the one position that both sides of the political aisle will not attempt to intervene in, is in the regards to the prosecution of a conflict. “The unforgiving minute,” is a phrase from Kipling that referred to certain times in war when the collective will of a people or an army can without warning collapse – critical moments that must be capitalized on. Thanks to the feckless pantywaist policies of politicians, our enemies in the Middle East are capitalizing on that axiom making the United States continue to repeat the one grave mistake it can no longer afford. It must have an established code of conflict that is easy to understand and leaves little room for error, while maintaining great room for flexibility. It must allow our servicemen to do what they were trained to do, and not turn them into construction workers whose uniforms just happen to be desert camo and bullet proof vests. It must let them keep weapons in their hands, not handing out ice cream and watercolor paints. There is room for that no doubt, but for another party, another time, one that follows after the men who’ve completed the call of front line duties. However, this approach to armed conflict seems to run deep in our history, regrettably.

America was still getting itself together when WWI broke out. Then, as now, there were those that falsely believed that if America just acted helpless, and simply kept a small standing army and navy, with little in the way of munitions, we would somehow receive a pass from the rest of the world. We were a little late to the party, taking three years and nine months for congress to take action, and only after seven of our ships were sunk by German submarines. Playing catch up, we were sending 10,000 G.I’s abroad everyday, and saved the day. Regardless of the warning of members of the military to the contrary, America was prepared to hammer its swords into plow shears, and once again rely upon the false notion that the “war to end all wars” had actually been fought. The military had to beg and plead to keep itself as strong as it was, when the eyes of the pacifists were once again awakened on the sleepy Sunday morning of December 7, 1941. Certainly there has been enough written and discussed, that it need not be reiterated here. However, the one thing that should be recognized is how “politics” began creeping into the manner in which we prosecuted that war. To some degree it was orchestrated out so that all of the allies were allowed to share in moments of glory. Much to the chagrin of men like Patton, who had to stop his advance into Germany, so that his fuel could be diverted to Montgomery, in order to allow him to catch up. Eisenhower angered a lot of our military leaders by failing to let the military do its job, and get it over with. Many have speculated that WWII in Europe could have ended many months earlier, had we heeded the advice of the professionals. We spent a lot of time and money fighting the cold war with the Russians, after again, failing to heed the advice of our military leaders, who warned of the dangers of not taking Prague, or Berlin, before the Russian’s could get there. History has written the correct but unheeded prophecies of those men.

The Korean War, or police action as well as Vietnam equally show the vain waste of human life, when the military is wrongly bridled with feckless policies of opinion poll driven politicians. This criticism is not pointed at any one political party. It matters not to me whether you are a democrat, republican, independent, etc. If you, who represents WE THE PEOPLE, are willing to send our soldiers into hostile territory, then it is incumbent to know what it is you want done beforehand. Having listened to the two interviews, it seems abundantly clear, that senators and congressmen should be required to attend a through briefing by the joint chiefs, so that they quickly and completely comprehend the threats from abroad, that WE THE PEOPLE, expect to be protected from. After which, it seems cogent for a code of conflict to be formulated given those threat assessments and understandings.

What then should be those understandings? First and foremost, everyone in a suit and tie should know what General Leonard Wood stated concerning the purpose of an army. “The purpose of an army is to fight!” The second point is to realize that of paramount importance is to make the number one goal of our actions, to be the defeat or destruction of our enemies. All other actions, no matter how well intentioned or noble they may be, are secondary, and must never conflict with the first goal. Thirdly, the goal must not require infinite resources, human nor financial, and twenty-year time lines to accomplish. Fourthly, our code of conflict can not nor should not be designed with the notion of political correctness in mind. It can not be drafted in order to make ivory tower elites or media personalities happy. It has to be predicated upon the notion of winning conflicts in the fastest manner possible, at the greatest cost to the enemy, and the least cost to us. It is understanding that all the hardware that has been developed, has been for that to transpire effectively and efficiently.

Our civilian leaders seem not to understand the nature of our enemy. Our “war on terror” is a misnomer. There has never been a war against a method, which was effectively fought and won. We are no more in a war against terror than our servicemen were in a war on “ Zero’s,” or “ U-Boats” or “Panzer tanks.” If we are to be gravely straightforward with ourselves, we would recognize that we are at war with Islamic fascists, more often than not from the Middle East, who have played on the frustrations of customarily regularly male, jobless young people, whose autocratic governments are unable to provide the conditions for decent employment and family life. A tiny group of Islamists appeals to the anxiety of the disaffected through a reflective and intransigent turn to a fabled Caliphate, in which religious purity trumps the material advantages of a decadent West and protects Islamic youth from the contamination of far-off technology and insidious ideas. Millions within the Islamic world daily scrutinize the West’s struggle against Islamic fascism. Somewhere within the recesses of their being, they perhaps would prefer, understandably so, and with some idealism, to live under Western-style freedom and democratic auspices. Their inability to let go I believe, is partly due to nationalistic, and religious reasons that has created an ethnic solidarity in this war, which ultimately seems to produce far greater resentment against a powerful America, even though it is America’s power that can bring the very freedom that the Arabs for decades, have declared they wished for. Correct code of conflict would not be bothered by such inconsistency. Rather it would make sure that it had not only overwhelmed the terrorists and their cohorts, but had done so in such destructive fashion that none in the Middle East might find such a repugnant cause at all romantic, bringing as it did utter ruin as the wage of the wrath of the United States. Therein has been the problem in allowing the empty suits to overrule the professional soldier. We always seem to stop short of fully achieving our objective. Politicians should formulate their plans first. Work out the details, and agree on what they want the end scenario to look like. Once they have done that, give it to the Joint-Chiefs, and then get the heck out of the way. But instead, suits with no skin in the game will flap in the breeze of public opinion, allowing the winds of conflict to blow in unnecessary chaos.

No doubt, given the recent turn of events in Afghanistan, an august body of men will gather together to formulate a new and revised code of conflict. One group will have experience, wisdom garnered from blood stained service, and braid upon their sleeves. The others will be in three-piece suits, checking their face book accounts, current public opinion polls, and scheduling meetings with their lobbyists. Mean while, our enemies are quietly gathering together, licking their collective chops, awaiting our “unforgiving minute.” That minute may come only when the spoiled and lazy elitists and the subculture of dualists they have spawned that keeps government ever growing, all suddenly find they have no power to their various entertainment devices, and see the headline news declaring that a couple of million people have just been vaporized. I pray not, but it is possible.

With a father who was a veteran of WWII and Korea, I grew up in American Legion Halls and VFW Posts, both here and in North Carolina. I’ve heard war stories that will never be made into motion pictures by Tom Hanks or Stephen Speilberg. The one fact I can count on, is that noble young citizens will always be asked, and will be ready to risk their lives for our country. They should not be expected to die for a code of conflict crafted in ignorance and forged in political correctness.

To: Members of Charlottesville City Council
From: Antoinette W. Roades
Date: 1 May 2012
Re: Your plan to give away 20 percent of Oakwood Cemetery

Given City practice over the last few years, what you are poised to do on 7 May could appear unremarkable. Again and again, you have given favor to Charlie Armstrong. And more and more, you have made only slight pretence of public process in proceeding with whatever you have already decided to do. (N.B. I can find no one who knew anything of a year-ago charette cited as neighborhood endorsement of development on the property involved. But even had my neighbors and I taken part in such a thing, we would not consider as endorsement a discussion of hypothetical projects between self-selected participants to constitute public process under law.) However, on brief investigation — the only sort of investigation possible given your unseemly rush to deliver the City’s latest gift — it becomes clear that the current situation is remarkable. It is remarkable because of the wrongs that have already been done. It is remarkable because of the wrongs that will be done if you persist.

Most recent among the wrongs done has been the misrepresentation of this property to the public and the press. And perhaps to you as well? It has been described as a problematic piece of land the City just happens to own “near Oakwood cemetery,” a piece with which something has long needed to be done, a dump worthy only of giveaway to what Councilors deem a worthy “vision” (albeit a “vision” even its submitter calls only conceptual). In fact, the property — which carries an assessed value of $370,700 despite its alleged worthlessness — is part of Oakwood cemetery, a part made up of public land purchased systematically by public officials with public money for the public purpose of expanding the City’s otherwise limited public cemetery space. And further inquiry reveals that this public land in a public cemetery should have been opened long ere now to the burials for which it was purchased. As for its being degraded in any degree, inquiry reveals that any such degradation is the direct and deplorable result not just of City neglect, but of active City abuse.

BACKGROUND

Our larger community — that is, both the City of Charlottesville and County of Albemarle — has only two public cemeteries, Maplewood and Oakwood, both of which lie in the City and fall under the jurisdiction of the Parks and Recreation Department. Both cemeteries were established in the 19th century — Maplewood earlier, Oakwood later. By the early 20th century, Maplewood was hemmed in by streets and residences that left it no potential for expansion. Oakwood, however, had potential for expansion, potential recognized by two sets of far-sighted and responsible City officials who secured additional land via two transactions.

By deed of 13 October 1944 (Charlottesville Deed Book 118, page 191; plat in CDB 20, page 289), the City acquired what is now Tax Parcel 29-266. Then, by deed of 29 March 1957 (CDB 198, page 61; plat in CDB 92, page 124), the City acquired what is now Tax Parcel 29-272.1. Both purchases reflect deliberation. Both occurred in difficult times when seemingly more important matters could claim public officials’ attention. The first occurred during World War II. The second occurred during the conflict over school desegregation. But as the deeds and related documents show, both occurred as soon as the property in question became available because of changes within the Gleason family, long residents of Ridge Street. (Note: The apparently low prices that the always public-spirited Gleasons set on their land further suggest that they were supportive of the purpose for which the City was making the purchase — yet another reason to honor that purpose.)

City officials of 1944 and 1957 obviously considered providing sufficient public burying ground to be a significant responsibility. Even that long ago, they foresaw a time when the burial capacity in the City cemeteries as then bounded would be exceeded. And documents show that at least some of those officials’ successors understood their intention and the property’s dedication. Two such items are attached. One is a Charlottesville map of 1963 published by National Bank but based, of course, on official surveys. It shows Oakwood’s boundaries inclusive of the parcels you are poised to give away. The other is a City Planning Department map of 1979 that projects land use for 1990. It also shows Oakwood inclusive of those two parcels. (The color blue denotes public use.) And I would add on an anecdotal note that no one I have raised this matter with — including former City Councilors — ever thought that the open land immediately west of Oakwood’s westernmost drive was anything but part of the cemetery.

Today, Maplewood appears to be full, and inquiry reveals that it is, in fact, “closed” because all available plots have been purchased. Indeed, it turns out that all its plots had been purchased by at least 20 years ago. Oakwood appears to have space remaining even east of its westernmost drive. In fact, however, it is also considered “closed” because all available plots east of Tax Parcels 29-266 and 29-272.1 have been purchased. But Oakwood should not be closed because Oakwood has more space — three-and-a-half acres more space that should have been opened for burials at least ten years ago if not earlier.

Instead of opening the land for the purpose for which it was purchased and needed, however, City officials allowed it to become a dumping site — that is, an illegal landfill — for assorted detritus hauled by City workers at the direction of City supervisors. That detritus, according to Jim Tolbert, has accumulated to a depth as measured by core samples of 20 feet. (Of course, any private landowner who had done the same thing at the same time would have been required to clean the property up under penalty of law. Failure to do so could have netted a fine, jail time, or both.)

SITUATION NOW

The repercussions of the City’s failures in regard to Oakwood vary. At a personal level, families of limited means who have needed public cemetery burial as well as families that may have considered Oakwood their traditional burial site have been forced to go not only elsewhere but onto the commercial cemetery market. At a community level, the natural flow of burials that makes of public cemeteries particularly valuable three-dimensional family albums and museums of local history has been cut off. And at a humanitarian level, the centuries-old community practice of providing burial ground for indigents, unknowns, and other unfortunates has been abandoned leaving a matter of civic compassion to the charity of churches.

The City’s official webpage for Oakwood says: “Oakwood Cemetery has been Charlottesville’s primary public cemetery since the latter half of the 19th century when Maplewood Cemetery began to reach its maximum capacity. It was also the primary burying ground for the poor and indigent. The first recorded indigent burial took place there in February of 1883 — that of “Sophie Shepherd’s child,” a local pauper. The cemetery still has a ‘Potter’s Field,’ a colloquial term for cemeteries used for individual burials of the poor. Such cemeteries, or sections of cemeteries, have existed throughout history as places for those who could not afford a grave or family vault.”

But the cemetery does not still have a Potters Field and has not had one for some time. So the statement on the City’s official website is untrue. (Note: This means among other things that should a resident of The Crossing or a client of The Haven die without means for private burial in a private cemetery — an event that can easily be foreseen — that person will again be homeless, something that would not have happened before Oakwood was declared “closed.”)

When I began this hurried inquiry, I thought the current situation might be attributed to mere reprehensible carelessness. During the time the Oakwood additions were made, public officials focused on being good stewards of public resources and providing basic amenities to the citizenry. However, in the last couple of decades, public officials have focused more and more on imposing on the citizenry the latest fads in politics and planning and providing public resources to private interests. Also, because the deaths of individuals rarely become public matters, the City’s failure to open the additional public burial space already provided for might easily elude public notice.

In the last couple of days, however, I have learned that employees of at least two (and probably three) City departments saw this situation developing and made their concerns known. And I have been told that at least some of those concerns were conveyed to City Council. So I am now forced to attribute the current situation to systemic incompetence, serial hypocrisy (vis-à-vis civic compassion), and calculated misrepresentation.

An analogy comes to mind — that is, declaring South Fork Reservoir worthless because silt that should have been dredged as a matter of course reduced its capacity below that for which it was designed. For the two situations to be truly analogous, however, City workers acting at their supervisors’ direction would also have to have dumped into the reservoir tons of debris rendering even the water it can hold unusable.

LOOKING AHEAD

Were blame to be assessed in this case at this moment, several generations of officials and employees would have to share it. But if you persist in giving 20 percent of the City’s public Oakwood Cemetery to Charlie Armstrong — who, of course, has shown unconscionable contempt for Hawkins family remains on the Ridge-Cherry property, contempt reinforced by the City Attorney’s directive to officials not to acknowledge the issue even for discussion — you will assume as entirely your own the blame for permanent denial of access by this community’s needy families, indigents, et al., to a basic amenity that your far-sighted predecessors acted to secure to them.

In my opinion, you have no legal right to do as you plan. If you persist you should be taken to court. I do hope, however, that you respond instead to the civic-minded ghosts of Charlottesville’s past — just the sort we should be honoring on the City’s 250th birthday — by restoring to current and future members of this community what already belongs to them.

Please do that. Thank you.

With both an engineering and medical background, my views are science and validated-results based.  They are more oriented with F. A. Hayek and “The Fatal Conceit,” than with American Planning Association dogma.

None of my comments are intended to disparage the conscientious efforts of those who have been fulfilling their duties in conducting the various studies being presented to you tonight.  My focus is on the factual results rather than on motives or good intentions.  Such a focus might give a false impression of my not being considerate or caring, just the opposite is the truth.

According to the official “oneCommunities” website, the “Livability Project” (your agenda item #1), is funded by a U.S. HUD $999,000 grant.  The October 14, 2010 letter from HUD to Mr. Stephen Williams in announcing the grant award made reference to the title of his application, “Sustainable Communities Regional Grant Planning Program.” Subsequently, an unexplained metamorphosis took place which transformed the project title into a “livability” project, and the term “sustainability” was scarcely to be found thereafter.  What is the definition of “livability” for this project?  If it exits, I cannot find it.

From that same website, I have copied one item from the 1998 Sustainability Accords (implementation of which is an objective of the grant):

3. To maintain a population composition that does not reduce the sustainability of the Region.
To be measured by the distribution of population according to age, race/ethnicity, income/personal wealth, education, and employment status.

In looking around the room at the people making up these commissions, I see at least one visible measurement feature not yet achieved from this 1998 guiding goal.

Mr. Williams in his opening remarks tonight claimed that the City, County, and University are considered as one entity by the public.  The public does not seem to agree, as documented by his own TJPDC livability group survey on jobs and housing preferences.  As reported in the February 15, 2012 Charlottesville-Tomorrow: “most of the 508 respondents said that they would prefer to live in the rural areas of Albemarle County if there were no barriers in choice of housing. Sixty-one percent said they commuted from outside the Charlottesville Albemarle area because they found housing elsewhere more affordable or a better value.”

The article continues: “…commuters continue to have a preference for larger houses on large lots in nearby counties…if expense were not a barrier, many of these commuters would prefer to live in Albemarle’s rural areas.”

This same  article noted that Mr. Wayne Cilimberg found that “it is too easy to live in the rural area and drive to work.” Albemarle County staff found this a “thorn in our flesh.”

From the citizen taxpayer’s point of view, it appears that “livability” is whatever the planners want it to be, even if it means forcing the round pegs of private citizen choice  into the square-hole  utopian notions of planners.  Instead of working to accommodate the expressed wishes of the public, the planners complain that the public does not know what is best for them.

The historical record of planning gives little reason to be optimistic about any attempts to define, measure, and regulate this undefined “livability.” Your own comments here tonight illustrate that fact. There were calls to have more committee meetings to get your stories straight before the next joint planning meeting.  The livability surveys are inherently flawed because any survey is limited to the chosen indicators.  What is the correct number of indicators?  Are all indicators of equal value? Who decides? Why feature questions on bike paths and not questions related to better or more paved roads? How do you quantify the worth of an indicator? What indicators are unknown, yet vital?

Would a different group pick and weigh different indicators? Whose biases get to shape the wording of the questions?  Who does not know that the phrasing of a question largely determines the answer? Who decides how large a sample group must be? Who decides the composition of that sample?

In the end, the result is largely pre-determined by the original crafters of the survey process, and the choices they offered the public.

You commissioners were quick to notice and question the issue of survey sample size and composition.  For all the effort to engage the public to vote their opinions on the packaged survey questions, the livability team could point to only 350 or so individuals, scattered over the several survey topics, who had signed in to partake in the surveys.  They had failed to cross reference the names and could not answer your question: “Are these the same people voting each time or not?  Is it the same core group of activists voting each time?   At some of the public voting displays only 20 or 30 people showed up. The County/City population is around 120,000.  This cannot be considered a valid representation of public opinion.  The HUD grant demands that the livability project go through this public participation process, but to say that at the end that “the public wants this or that” based on the results so far is not valid or meaningful.

None of the Livability surveys included linking “cost” to the desirability of a measure.  If the survey had included: “How much more in taxes would you pay for measure “x,” then the results might be meaningful.   So long as the wish list is “free” why not have more of everything deemed desirable. You will get a diversity of choices limited only by the number of people responding.  Livability for some might include a free flat panel TV, why not?

None of the Livability surveys included “private property rights” as a limiting factor or “indicator” in the choices offered. An expert on governmental planning, Randal O’Toole, has noted that “planners believe that private property rights are flexible and can be changed at whim.” He quotes from the APA book “The Land We Share,” that private property is an “institution that communities reshape over time to promote evolving goals,” and comments that “if guided by planners, the government decides that your property has historic, environmental, or scenic value, they can take from you the right to use your land without any composition.” Do you agree with this?

On the topic of transportation, Mr. O’Toole notes that “more than four out of five Americans say they prefer a house in the suburbs to higher-density housing near jobs, shops, and transit. (This true here as noted already in the TJPDC Livability study.) But planners believe a greater share of Americans should live in high-density housing, partly because planners erroneously think people living in higher densities will drive less.”  He notes that “Germany can’t tear them (high-density housing) down fast enough to keep up with people leaving for single-family homes.”

The presentations this evening spent much time on affordable housing.  What is the definition of “affordable housing”?  What determined the arbitrary percent level goal for 2050? How much is the right amount and for whom? I heard no mention of making housing affordable. In City/County discussions of new jobs, such jobs are always carefully qualified as being “environmentally friendly, high-tech, high-paying, clean.”  This proviso filters out the real jobs that the real unemployed might be qualified to do in more basic manufacturing.  The large numbers of unemployed for whom housing is unaffordable do not have the educational skills for such utopian industries.  This cherry picking of acceptable industry/jobs puts the disadvantaged in a perpetual dependency role rather than into a job.

One example of advocacy guiding public policy was illustrated by the comments regarding accommodations by the City to bicycling groups.  The spokesperson for the City noted the need for basic infrastructure upgrades.  How odd then that C-T reports that “The city’s budget director, Leslie Beauregard, said $100,000 of the capital budget was moved from undergrounding utilities into bicycle infrastructure development.”

Much “livability” talk also concerns the achieving of the right mix of housing stock and individuals.  The April 17, 2012 article by Thomas Sowell discussed this very topic.  He notes, “…in order to mix and match classes and races to fit the government’s preconceptions…is the idea that there is something wrong if a community does not have an even or random distribution of various kinds of people. This arbitrary assumption is that the absence of evenness or randomness — whether in employment, housing or many other situations — shows a “problem” that has to be “corrected.”

No evidence is considered necessary for this assumption to prevail at any level of government, including the US Supreme Court. No one has to show the existence, much less the prevalence, of an even or random distribution of different segments of the population — in any country, anywhere. Nothing is more common than for people to sort themselves out when it comes to residential housing, whether by class, race or other factors.”

In reference to politicians and bureaucrats, Sowell concludes with, “People convinced of their own superior wisdom and virtue have no time to spare for what other people really want.”

The article by Wendell Cox in the WSJ April 9, 2012 “California Declares War on Suburbia” confirms the experiences in other states regarding planning edicts.  He notes that “The campaign against suburbia is the result of laws passed in 2006 (the Global Warming Solutions Act) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and in 2008 (the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act) on urban planning. The latter law, as the Los Angeles Times aptly characterized it, was intended to “control suburban sprawl, build homes closer to downtown and reduce commuter driving, thus decreasing climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions.” In short, to discourage automobile use.”

Further, “Dartmouth economist William Fischel found that California’s housing had been nearly as affordable as the rest of the nation until the more restrictive regulations, such as development moratoria, urban growth boundaries, and overly expensive impact fees came into effect starting in the 1970s. Other economic studies, such as by Stephen Malpezzi at the University of Wisconsin, also have documented the strong relationship between more intense land-use regulations and exorbitant house prices.”

There was discussion during the meeting concerning housing prices and their statistical distribution in the City/County and land use/density.  Are you  bemoaning County regulations requiring 21 acre minimums for land divisions, with the restriction of only one home on one acre of that 21 acres? Do you not realize that the more restrictive land use laws become, the more expensive the land and homes become?  The number of people who chose to move and live outside the City or County because of increased housing costs is testimony to this.  Such planning choices make City and County living appear to be more of an elitist achievement.

At the recent London conference “Planet Under Pressure,” Yale University professor Karen Seto was quoted in MSMBC, “We certainly don’t want them (humans) strolling about the entire countryside.  We want them to save land for nature by living closely (together).”

Commissioners, it appears that there is a schism between the elite notions of the university planners and the wants and actions of the public. You  have the unenviable job of reconciling your good intentions with history and human diversity.

Corbusier tried in the 1930s with his “Radiant Cities” project; Jane Jacobs did a bit better; Chicago tried with the best planning talent in the 1950s and 1960s only to have these edifices later demolished.

In conclusion, I return to F. A. Hayek’s “Fatal Conceit.”  Ralph Reiland’s 2009 definition of that term conveys the message,  “that one man or one group, one cabinet of commanding officials or one central committee, or one team of planners from Harvard and Yale, can gather and understand enough information in order to reshape the world around them according to their wishes, reshape human nature…”

(Note: These remarks were delivered to a joint session of the Albemarle County and Charlottesville City Planning Commissions on April 18, 2012.)

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

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

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

Flaherty’s edited version changed the third line:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(repeat)

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

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

In his comments, entitled, “Our Titanic Government,” Schilling references the arrogance and ignorance surrounding America’s impending financial doom. Kristin Szakos, Dennis Rooker, David Toscano, Dave Norris, and Tom Perriello are noted as prominent examples of government officials who through their actions, votes, and words endanger liberty.

Watch “Our Titanic Government”:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=SflHlflRNao

Following an exposé chronicling Charlottesville City’s profligate misspending, Albemarle County is the target of the “red pen 2” report—suggestions that if followed would save County taxpayers more than $14M this year alone. While not exhaustive, these first-round recommendations ultimately could result in a real estate tax rate reduction of .09, dropping the proposed rate per $100 of assessed value from .762 to .672.

While Albemarle County has responded to “the new economic reality” with significantly more verity than has Charlottesville City, there is much work to be done on the county budget and the appurtenant—and largely staff-driven— budgeting process. Unfortunately, as is the case in Charlottesville, elected officials are reluctant to suggest or even support commonsense proposals to reign-in expenditures. The concept of limited government is lost amongst grandiose, big-government visions and the accompanying community accolades often received by elected benefactors of taxpayer funds. Palatial public buildings, overly compensated government employees (salary and benefits), and handouts to politically favored “charities” show great opportunity for spending reform in Albemarle County.

The savings set forth and the resulting rate-drop could net the average Albemarle County homeowner $251 per year in reduced real estate taxation and at the same time deposit an additional $14M into the local economy. In reality, such changes are practically inconceivable given the lack of courage, foresight, and leadership shown in previous spending decisions ordained by Albemarle County’s elected and appointed officials.

(H/T to Steven Latimer for providing the red pen, and to Carole Thorpe for covering Albemarle County’s $36 paper budget fee.)

Review the Righteous Red Pen 2 Budget Analysis and Proposed Savings for Albemarle County:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schilling’s yearlong investigation resulted in Special Prosecutor, Diana Wheeler, being named to research procurement and procedural anomalies inside City Hall.

Barrick cited job “stress” as the primary reason for his departure from the $95,000 per year position, which he has held for nearly six years. Barrick will leave his post at the end of March.

Read The Schilling Show’s report on Barrick’s City Hall improprieties.

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

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

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

Getting the Goods

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

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

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

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

Ric Barrick and the Request for Quotations (RFQ)

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

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

Eric

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

Ric

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The initial submitted bids offered the following terms of service:

*lowest bidder

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

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

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

Jennifer

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

Ric

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,

Jennifer

The Negotiation

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

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

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

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

Eric

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

Ric

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

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

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

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

Ric,

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

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

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

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

The Manipulation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§ 2.2-4318. Negotiation with lowest responsible bidder.

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: Our Bids

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

Ric

The Cover-Up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ric,

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

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

Thanks!

Eric

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

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

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

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

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

Rob,

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

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

Best Regards,

Jennifer Luchard

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even with multiple legal bulwarks in place:

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

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

Timeline of Events

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

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

November 15, 2010: RFQ issued by Charlottesville City

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

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

November 22, 2010: RFQ “response date” ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schilling Show host, Rob Schilling goes “national” in an appearance on America’s Radio News Network’s “The Drive Home,” a news-talk network syndicated to 275 stations nationwide.

Hosts Steve Ray and Rachel Crowson seek Rob’s analysis of the recent GOP Primary results including Mitt Romney’s viability, the Ron Paul campaign, Newt Gingrich’s second place finishes, and the Santorum surge.

Hear the interview, originally aired on March 14, 2012:

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

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

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

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

Dedicated leaders like Dave Norris deserve continued support.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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