Stewart, a Republican, is best known for groundbreaking illegal immigration reform in Prince William County and his statewide Virginia Rule of Law proposal.

You heard it first on The Schilling Show!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HUJA: I see no reason…

SCHILLING: It is only for private landlords and private businesses

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

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

HUJA: Well, uh, shouldn’t be exempt.

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

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

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

HUJA: No.

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

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

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

(Satyendra Huja photo courtesy of Charlottesville Tomorrow.)

It was with great fanfare that Charlottesville’s $95,000+ per year spokesman, Ric Barrick, announced the selection of Chris J. Engel as city’s new Director of Economic Development (DED) in a January 12 news release:

The City of Charlottesville is proud to announce the appointment of Chris J. Engel as the next Economic Development Director for the City…Engel is currently the Assistant Economic Development Director for Charlottesville and has been employed by the City since 2005.  His first day in the new position will be February 1st.

Next, Engel’s stellar qualifications were trumpeted by Charlottesville’s educationally under-qualified City Manager, Maurice Jones (himself the beneficiary of a $170,000+ public salary):

“During his time with the City, Chris has proven himself to be an effective leader in our organization and in the community,” said Charlottesville City Manager Maurice Jones.  “He has the credentials, the skills and the vision to build off of the great success we have had in economic development during the last decade.”

But what of Charlottesville’s long-time Director of Economic Development, Aubrey Watts (recipient of a $160,000+ public salary)?

The release explains that he has chosen to relinquish his official Economic Development title in order to lighten his workload:

The announcement follows the decision by the current director, Aubrey Watts, to concentrate on his duties as Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer as well as to manage the transition of the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing. [sic]

Conspicuously absent from Barrick’s missive was any reference to compensation. Watts, in assuming temporary responsibility for shepherding a leadership transition in the city’s Housing Authority, has shed what was a permanent responsibility as the city’s Director of Economic Development.

Therefore, a downward salary adjustment is anticipated, right?

Wrong.

A January 12 request to Barrick for information on the adjusted salaries of both Engel and Watts was only partially answered on January 19:

From: “Barrick, Ric” <BARRICK@charlottesville.org>
Date: January 19, 2012 05:42:39 PM EST
To: ‘Schilling Show’
Cc: “Brown, Craig” <Brownc@charlottesville.org>
Subject: RE: Director of Economic Development Chosen for Charlottesville

Rob

The paperwork for that promotion has not been received into Human Resources as of yet.  As soon as it is gets in I will send you a note as to the results.  As for the second question, Mr. Watts’ current salary is $160,929.60 but that did not change with this reassignment of responsibilities.

Ric

Omitted from Barrick’s initial response was requested information on Mr. Engel, currently employed as Charlottesville’s Assistant Director of Economic Development. The threat of a FOIA request prompted the city spokesman finally to answer eight days after the information was requisitioned:

From: “Barrick, Ric” <BARRICK@charlottesville.org>
Date: January 20, 2012 04:20:04 PM EST
To: ‘Schilling Show’
Cc: “Brown, Craig” <Brownc@charlottesville.org>
Subject: RE: FOIA Request Chris Engle’s New Salary Re: Director of Economic Development Chosen for Charlottesville

Rob

Chris’ base salary in his new position beginning February 1st will be $115,000 but that will change a bit once it is entered into the payroll system by HR and his hourly is figured out and applied in the system.  That has not been done yet as they just today received his paperwork.  His current salary is $86,028.80.

Ric

Let’s do the math:

Current DED Aubrey Watts has seen his duties decrease by a value $115,000 per year (the amount soon being paid to Engel in order for him to assume Watts’ position), and yet, Watts will continue to receive $160,929.60 annually.

Assistant DED Chris Engel will see his already inflated yearly paycheck of $86,028.80 balloon by $28,971.20 (or 34 percent) to $115,000.

The average Charlottesville household, according to the 2010 United States Census, is earning just $39,030 per year (2009 figure).

How does that household income compare to the base salaries (excluding benefits) of select, highly compensated Charlottesville government “fat cats”?

C-ville "Fat Cat" Salaries vs. Median C-ville Household Income ($39,030)

Yet, life is easy for Charlottesville’s elite ruling class. With seemingly no oversight, these self-perpetuating white-collar government employees continue to feather their own nests while enriching themselves beyond measure—all at the expense of chronically overburdened and hopelessly unrepresented Charlottesville taxpayers.

At the ACSB January 12 organizational meeting, politically left-leaning member Eric Strucko—recently a champion of process and corruption reform—nominated Buyaki for chair. Establishment darling, Diantha McKeel, then nominated current board leader, Steve Koleszar, for another term.

The vote for Buyaki was 2-5, with only Buyaki and Strucko voting “yes.” “Republican” chameleons Pam Moynihan and Barbara Mouly sided with progressives Koleszar, McKeel and Ned Gallaway to seal Buyaki’s fate. The vote for Koleszar’s renewed chairmanship was a 5-2 mirror of the previous tally.

Listen to the shocking ACSB roll call votes on board leadership nominations:

For vice chair, Strucko again nominated Buyaki, while immediately thereafter Gallaway put forward McKeel. Buyaki received his own vote along with those of Mouly and Strucko. When asked for her vote on Buyaki, Moynihan paused for nearly six seconds before saying “no.” She was joined in dissent by McKeel, Koleszar, and Gallaway. The same 5-2 majority that supported Koleszar for chair subsequently elected McKeel as the ACSB vice chair.

Under Koleszar’s leadership, the Albemarle County School Board and Administration have been criticized for several high-profile bumblings: Kid Pan Alley’s student indoctrination; 111 missing laptop computers;  a controversial $2 million computer software system; a “block scheduling” debacle; and a wayward athletic director, amongst other recent scandals. None of these has been satisfactorily resolved, and the public largely seems to have lost faith in the board’s ability to capably manage the Division.

Koleszar, McKeel and Gallaway’s support for institutional status quo is not surprising, as they are closely aligned with Albemarle County’s liberal education and political establishments.

Strucko, to his credit and through his votes, has shown himself to be fiercely independent—more interested in competence and transparency than in politics.

Mouly and Moynihan, however, sought Republican support in recent elections. Their unexplained votes for continuing liberal ACSB (mis)management may leave previously supportive Albemarle County Republicans scratching their heads; and the turn-votes certainly will ensure that the board’s only reliable reformers continue to play defense rather than offense in the year ahead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today’s KPA press release tells a different story.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also participating in the discussion was Albemarle County School Board member Jason Buyaki who called in to take issue with the song’s lyrics, which he says promote “a sense of mediocrity,”  violate “Albemarle County [Schools] core mission statement,” and do not further “excellence in our schools….”

Listen to the explosive interview (original air date January 3, 2012):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcY_skp8Bjg

Lyrics to Part of the 99:

Some people have it all,
but they don’t think that they have enough
They want more money
A faster ride
They’re not content
Never satisfied

Yes-  they are the 1 percent
I used to be one of the 1 percent
I worked all the time
Never saw my family
Couldn’t make life rhyme
Then the bubble burst
It really, really hurt
I lost my money
Lost my pride
Lost my home
Now I’m part of the 99
I used to be sad now I’m satisfied
Cause I really have enough
Though I lost my yacht and plane
Didn’t need that extra stuff
Could have been much worse
You don’t need to be first
Cause I’ve got my friends
Here by my side
Don’t need it all
I’m happy to be part of the 99.

ROB SCHILLING
With an all-Democrat city council that’s likely to stay that way, and a city populace that typically votes 80 percent Democratic, conservative radio show host and former City Councilor Rob Schilling may be in the minority, but his is a loud and persistent voice of opposition to the leaders of what he calls “The People’s Republic of Charlottesville.” The most recent target of his wrath: Occupy Charlottesville, and the city officials who approved the tent city that sprung up in mid-October and remained until November 30. Calling the Occupiers a “lawless group” and criticizing the condition of Lee Park after the group vacated, Schilling has also pointed out that the Tea Party hasn’t been met with the same level of favors by the city.

The Schilling Show thanks The Hook for this recognition, and congratulates POTY winner, Albemarle County Supervisor Ken Boyd, as well as the other runners up.

It appears that the United States Department of Justice (DoJ), Criminal Division, is working with United Kingdom police to pursue the leaker of the 2009 and 2011 “Climategate” emails.

I have learned that last week DoJ sent a search-and-seizure letter to the host of three “skeptic” blogs. Last night, UK police raided a blogger’s home and removed computers and equipment.

The leaked records derailed domestic “cap-and-trade” legislation in the U.S. and, internationally, talks for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. The emails and computer code were produced with taxpayer funds and held on taxpayer-owned computers both in the US and the UK, and all were subject to the UK Freedom of Information Act, the US FOIA, and state FOI laws.

They also were being unlawfully withheld in both the UK (by the University of East Anglia) and the US (Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, including stonewalling me for two years, and three others for longer).

The hunt involving US and UK law enforcement is now escalating.

Wednesday night, UK time, six detectives with the UK police (Norfolk Police Department) raided the home of at least one blogger, removing his equipment to look for clues to the identity of leaker “FOIA 2011”.

On December 9, DoJ sent a preservation letter under 18 U.S.C 2703(f) to the publication platform (website host) WordPress. This authority authorizes the government to request an ISP to preserve all of the records of a specific account for 90 days while the feds work on a warrant.

Norfolk PD affirmed to the subject of at least one of their raids that this international law enforcement hunt is for the leaker, meaning not for those whose acts the leaker exposed, releasing admissions in their own words.

In the U.S., the academic and other political Left have had fits about the Virginia Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, exercising even more specific, anti-fraud authority to seek further records from University of Virginia, following up on indications from the first Climategate release of possible fraud against the taxpayer.

Apparently, that represented an abuse of the police power. No word yet if they are outraged by DoJ’s current foray or the UK raiding team.

The DoJ attorney sending the preservation letters, as it hapens in this small world, a graduate of the University of Virginia (UVa). UVa is also the subject of litigation a group I am associated with, the American Tradition Institute (ATI), has filed on behalf of Virginia taxpayers seeking Climategate-related emails it holds.

This is a case which, I have it on reliable authority, has the Virginia faculty and establishment beside themselves and demanding an all-out effort to oppose production wear us down (and also Attorney General Cuccinelli).

So far UVa has spent upwards of a million dollars in privately donated money just to fight the AG’s request. They continue to fight us in court every step of the way. Clearly, this is no small matter in the quarters insisting that this taxpayer-financed information ever see the light of day.

Even the criminal legal apparatus of the US and UK must be invoked against this threat, apparently.

So, to review, the UK police and the US Department of Justice, Criminal Division, are pursuing a leaker of public records subject to one ore more freedom of information laws, unlawfully withheld under those laws, which leaks indicate, e.g., apparent civil violations (tortious interference by seeking dismissial of certain “skeptics”), and raising reasonable questions of fraud against taxpayers.

And they are pursuing the leaker.

The content of what your Department of Justice has sent follows:

Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2703(f), this letter is a formal request for the preservation of all stored communications, records, and other evidence in your possession regarding the following domain name(s) pending further legal process: [DELETED] (“the Accounts”) from 00:01 GMT Monday 21 November 2011 to 23:59 GMT Wednesday 23 November 2011.

I request that you not disclose the existence of this request to the subscriber or any other person, other than as necessary to comply with this request. If compliance with this request might result in a permanent or temporary termination of service to the Accounts, or otherwise alert any user of the Accounts as to your actions to preserve the information described below, please contact me as soon as possible and before taking action.

I request that you preserve, for a period of 90 days, the information described below currently in your possession in a form that includes the complete record. This request applies only retrospectively. It does not in any way obligate you to capture and preserve new information that arises after the date of this request. This request applies to the following items, whether in electronic or other form, including information stored on backup media, if available:

1. The contents of any communication or file stored by or for the Accounts and any associated accounts, and any information associated with those communications or files, such as the source and destination email addresses or IP addresses.
2. All records and other information relating to the Accounts and any associated accounts including the following:

a. Names (including subscriber names, user names, and screen names);

b. Addresses (including mailing addresses, residential addresses, business addresses, and e-mail addresses);

c. Local and long distance telephone connection records;

d. Records of session times and durations, and the temporarily assigned network addresses (such as Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses) associated with those sessions, including any log history of when username “FOIA” uploaded posts to the Accounts;

e. Length of service (including start date) and types of service utilized;

f. Telephone or instrument numbers (including MAC addresses);

g. Other subscriber numbers or identities (including the registration Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses); and

h. Means and source of payment for such service (including any credit card or bank account number) and billing records.

If you have questions regarding this request, please call me at 202-XXX-XXXX.

Sincerely,

XXXXXX

Trial Attorney

 

Christopher C. Horner serves as a Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In an ongoing debate with the Parks Director and City Council over a proposed regulation affecting private athletic instruction, I’ve learned that the rule of law matters little here in Charlottesville. Arbitrary regulations and disparate treatment seem to be an acceptable practice to city administrators and elected officials alike.

Two months ago, my wife Svetlana and I complained to the Parks Director that Svetlana was being harassed by pool staff at the Smith Aquatic & Fitness Center. The harassment began over the summer when Svetlana started giving swimming lessons to our 8-year-old daughter. Staff members would often approach Svetlana at the pool and demand that she stop instructing. They explained that there was a pool policy against private swim instruction. Even after Svetlana responded that she was merely instructing her own child, the pool staff sometimes insisted that she still stop all instruction. At subsequent outings to the pool, Svetlana had to discretely teach swimming techniques to our daughter because she did not want to attract the attention of pool staff members, who might harass her again if they caught sight of her instruction.

Incidentally, the official pool rules and regulations included no prohibition against private instruction. Whenever Svetlana asked pool staff to see the regulation that they were enforcing against her, they never produced it.

Without any written regulation against private instruction, Svetlana later attempted to teach private lessons at the pool after other residents began requesting them from her. Most of these requests came from other parents of children on the city swim team, who, like Svetlana, were dissatisfied with the poor quality of instruction by the city coaches. So they sought individual lessons from Svetlana, who has a unique knowledge of swimming technique—she is a former Olympic swimmer who spent 9 years competing at the international level, collecting numerous medals throughout her career.

But when Svetlana began instructing, she was again met with harassment by pool staff, even though no other swimmer at the pool was impacted by her lessons. Her instruction did not prevent anyone from using the pool, nor did it impede anyone in the pool. Pool regulations require swimmers to share lanes when an open lane is unavailable—lanes can accommodate 10 or more people when swimmers swim in a race-track pattern in the lane, and there are 8 lanes at Smith AFC. Whenever Svetlana provided instruction, she shared the lane with at most one other person—most of the time, open lanes were available and everyone in the pool had lanes to themselves. Regardless, pool staff still ordered her to stop all instruction.

Frustrated by this unwritten policy (and some belligerent treatment by pool staff towards Svetlana that I won’t address here), Svetlana and I met with the Parks Director, Brian Daly, and the Recreation Division Manager, Vic Garber, to complain and to learn if there truly was a written policy that restricted instructional activity. Daly and Garber maintained that a policy against private instruction existed, and they assured me that they had the authority to enforce this policy. But when I asked Daly to show me the official regulation, he couldn’t. He stammered that he could not produce the regulation at the time because (lame excuse alert) the regulation was buried in some files somewhere—he said he would get back to me when he found it. I walked away from the meeting thinking that our Parks Director is either grossly incompetent (unable to manage the handful of regulations that govern the parks) or that he just lied to me.

A couple days later, I emailed Daly to ask if he found the missing regulation. I got no response, so I decided to draw more attention to this issue. I sent a lengthy email to the City Council and others detailing the problems we’ve had with the pool and Daly. The City Manager, Maurice Jones, responded that he would look into the matter further. I asked him if he or a prior City Manager had ever approved of a regulation prohibiting private instruction at park facilities. According to City Code Section 18.1(d), all park regulations must be approved by the City Manager. In an email response, Jones avoided my question, but he tried to assure me that Daly is free to exercise broad discretion in setting parks policy. He added that he had asked Daly to develop “a more detailed written policy pertaining to the issue of conducting private business on the city’s Parks and Recreation properties.” This confirmed my hunch that no actual policy existed, and that Daly was abusing his authority under the law.

Svetlana and I then addressed the City Council on October 17 to complain about this issue. We complained that the policy, if it existed at all, violated Svetlana’s right to free speech. In fact, a federal court has held that instructional activities are “a protected form of expression under the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble, to teach and to disseminate information.” We complained that the policy was also discriminatory because it was being enforced only at city pools and left other forms of private instruction (tennis lessons, for example) free from regulation. And we complained that the policy was unconstitutional because it was arbitrarily enforced—that it permitted pool administrators to pick and choose whom to harass. The U.S. Supreme Court considers any law or regulation invalid when “it may authorize and even encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” When this regulation reaches innocent individuals like mothers seeking to teach their children how to swim, it is undoubtedly arbitrary. And when this regulation has been enforced only against two Russian-speaking women (Angela Tutovani is the other woman who complained at the City Council meeting that she was harassed for teaching her son how to swim), then it is discriminatory or at least has the potential to be enforced in a discriminatory manner.

In response, the City Council and staff defended the policy. They suggested that Svetlana was somehow profiting off the public by teaching at a public pool. (She is not. She is profiting off her extensive knowledge of swimming.) Maurice Jones stressed the need for the city to limit its liability. (Its liability, of course, is unaffected by Svetlana’s instruction because it has the same obligation to provide a safe swimming environment no matter who is using the pool.) And Councilwoman Kristin Szakos even suggested that the city needed to exercise some kind of control over instructors to “make sure that they’re not teaching kids, you know, to breath under water or something crazy.” (Mindset: the people are stupid; without government regulation to guard over us, there will be total chaos and danger.)

City Attorney Craig Brown finally jumped in and said, “It strikes me that we’re debating a policy that hasn’t been written yet.” The Council then asked Daly if there actually was an existing policy, and he responded that it was in development and would be ready in two weeks. So Daly had in fact violated the law by enforcing a regulation that existed only in his mind. Daly had in fact lied to Svetlana and me when he insisted that a regulation governing this activity actually existed. The Council never reprimanded or even questioned Daly about his unlawful exercise of authority. They instead pressed on with business and followed the recommendation of the City Attorney, who said, “I think [Daly] should have the opportunity to come up with what he thinks is a fair and enforceable—and enforceable in a consistent manner—policy, and if the Vanyo’s are still upset, then they can let you know.”

We are still upset, not just because the new policy does nothing to address our constitutional concerns, but also because the City Council has revealed its intent to restrict only Svetlana’s right to instruct.

The regulation that Daly proposed to the City Council at the last meeting (December 5) created a licensing requirement for any private instruction at all park facilities. The regulation still infringed upon an individual’s right to engage in free speech. The regulation was still unconstitutional for its arbitrary enforcement. But at least the regulation was meant to apply equally to all kinds of private instruction. After Gary Elwell—a private tennis professional who offers paid instruction on public courts—spoke out against the policy, however, the City Council showed its discomfort with the policy’s equal application.

The City Council’s response to Gary’s complaint was quite striking because it was so disparate from the response that Svetlana received. Gary wasn’t lectured by Councilman David Brown that, because he had a business, the city was free to regulate it. Gary wasn’t lectured by the City Manager that tennis instruction somehow added to the city’s liability. Councilwoman Szakos didn’t explain to Gary that his instruction needed to be controlled by the city so that it could ensure that tennis instructors weren’t doing something crazy, like teaching kids to swallow tennis balls. The Councilors instead were sympathetic to Gary’s complaint.

Mayor Norris’ response was particularly curious. He said, “I guess I’m a little bit concerned about the comments from Mr. Elwell because I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.” I suppose Elwell represents the baby that Norris wants to coddle, and Svetlana represents the wastewater he wants to discard. Mayor Norris continued, “And if we have a policy that’s gonna make it difficult or impossible for somebody like Mr. Elwell who is trying to work well within the system… I want to make sure that the policy is crafted in a way that we’re not allowing people to abuse the system but accommodating someone who is trying to work well within the system.” I suppose our efforts to draw attention to an unwritten policy that was illegally enforced against Svetlana—and our attendance at two Parks Board meetings to comment on the newly drafted policy—is what the Mayor regards as abusing the system and not working within it.

Councilman Brown was especially uncomfortable with Daly’s regulation—what he labeled as a “stifling policy.” Brown, who said he has paid for private tennis lessons in the past, argued that the regulation should not be so broad that it impacted activities like tennis lessons. He suggested that the city should not even consider regulating activities on courts and fields until other residents start complaining that private instructional activities are inhibiting their use of these facilities.

Brown’s recommendation is reasonable, but it must be applied to ALL facilities, including pools. There has not been a single complaint about Svetlana’s instruction at Smith AFC. And unlike a tennis lesson, which takes over one of only 12 public courts in the city and forces other residents to wait for a court on a busy day, Svetlana’s swimming instruction does not impede other swimmers nor deny them access to the pool.

Yet the City Council requested Daly to come up with a policy that regulates only the pool. And because Svetlana is the only person in the city seemingly affected by such a regulation, it is essentially targeted at her. There is no basis for it. The proposed regulation is completely arbitrary and without justification. It is unfair, inequitable, and unconstitutional. But it is totally acceptable here in Charlottesville.

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.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfziHvdRMag

Facing eviction from their trashed Lee Park encampment, the true character of Occupy Charlottesville (OC) was revealed during a November 30, late night police action to liberate the park.

City Manager (and Director of Public Safety), Maurice Jones, in conjunction with Charlottesville Mayor Dave Norris, ordered the group dislocated, after previously ordering police to disregard the law and allow OC to violate permit and curfew statutes.

In a November 2 press release, Occupiers promised the greater community that theirs was a peaceful movement—intent only on calling attention to the excesses of structured capitalism:

The purpose of this three-week protest is to prove to ourselves and to the world that peaceful, abundant community is possible without corporate sponsorship, huge budgets, or leaders.” [emphasis added]

OC’s aggressive actions and violent invective of November 30 belie several previous group statements regarding the nature of the local Occupy movement.

Unearthed in this shocking audio/video compilation are Occupy Charlottesville’s:

• Blatant sexism—the vicious verbal assault on a female police officer
• Anti-police obloquy—with obvious intent to provoke
• Disrespect for the rule of law—refusing to obey lawful orders to disperse
• Extremely vile language—used liberally throughout, even in the presence of young children
• Verbal violence directed toward government officials—“Dave F#&%ing Norris”

The unmerited leniency and institutional political favoritism shown toward Occupy Charlottesville by naïve, immature city officials has been met with dangerously vehement hostility. This Marxist movement—born of lawlessness—predictably has degenerated into base depravity and utter chaos.