Creigh Deeds’ Current Video

This advertisement speaks for itself, I think. It emphasizes strong points, reflects the adult demeanor that Senator Deeds has, and doesn’t look like a commercial for a used car.

Now you get to decide what you like or dislike about it.

Love and Respect

My gift to my friends, Vivian and Brian.

Vivian Paige and Brian Moran - Norfolk, May 2009

You will find no person more dedicated to Democrats and the ideals of the Democratic Party, than Vivian J. Paige. She exhausts herself to contribute time, money and intellect to elections every year. She is my friend, and I am glad to call her that.  She inspires me, teaches me, and has a kind word when things are rotten.

This is certainly no endorsement of Brian Moran, but most of the same things I said about Vivian also apply to Brian. He has been a tireless worker on behalf of the Democratic Party, and I wish him luck on June 9th. Just because he is not my candidate doesn’t mean that I can’t honor him, if for no other reason, he is the candidate my friend supports; and I respect that.

One other thing that is common with two of the three candidates for Governor – they respect me.

Flowers in Full Bloom

The Prince Edward County “Guess the Account” Game

The way Prince Edward County government hides behind various ruses to get what they want, often times, for themselves, is amazing to behold. Witness:

Prince Edward County Board of Supervisors Chair Buckie Fore wanted to get money to his cash-strapped friends over at Draper Aden Engineers, so he had to come up with a way to get around not only public comment, but the requirement for issuing Request for Proposals as well. I am going to quote minutes from a meeting in which this happened, but first, the modus of the Chair.

It was school budget season, so a joint Board meeting was called, ostensibly to debate and discuss about the school’s budget for that coming year. Both boards were to meet in the Agriculture building, south of Farmville on Rt. 15.  (Small changes in format of quote to display properly.)

November 26, 2007
At a reconvened meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Prince Edward County, held jointly with the School Board of Prince Edward County, in the Prince Edward County School Board Conference Room, Eagle Drive, Farmville, Virginia, on Tuesday, November 26, 2007, at 5:40 p.m., there were present:

Board of Supervisors

• William G. Fore, Jr.,  Chairman
• Howard F. Simpson, Vice Chairman
• Sally W.Gilfillan
• Pattie Cooper-Jones
• Robert M. Jones
• James C. Moore
• Lacy B. Ward

School Board

• Russel L. Dove, Chairman
• Herbert Doswell
• Linda L. Leatherwood
• Patsy G. Pelland
• Ellery Sedgwick

Also present: Wade Bartlett, County Administrator; Sarah Elam Puckett, Assistant County Administrator;  Mattie Wiley;  and Dr. Patricia Watkins, Division Superintendent.

Chairman Fore called the Board of Supervisors to order at 5:40 p.m., as a reconvened meeting from November 14, 2007, for preliminary budget discussion with the Prince Edward County School Board.

In Re: Sandy River Reservoir Water System

Mr. Bartlett stated the first order of business was to review the project scope of work for the Sandy River Reservoir Water System. He said the project consisted of the intake with the capacity of six million gallons, the pump station with an initial capacity of two million gallons and ultimate capacity of eight…

What?

A joint meeting with the School Board to discuss the budget, and the first thing out of Wade Bartlett’s mouth is talking about the required steps to do business that was not advertised to the public, and that some of the board members themselves didn’t know until moments before the meeting. No school business was discussed until around 7PM, after dinner.

After empty assurances from Fore and Bartlett, everyone on the board except Lacy Ward voted to give whatever it was that was being asked of them. And so, the Sandy River Reservoir project was born. That same night, massive expenditures, each crafted so as to be under $100,000, were voted on and passed by the board.

Mr. [James] Moore made a motion to appropriate $99,000 to Account #4-100-42610-3160 for the preliminary engineering report for the Sandy River Reservoir Water Treatment Plant; $82,500 to Account #4-100-42610-3160 for the preliminary engineering for the raw water intake, and $75,000 to Account #4-100-42610-3160 for the Sandy River Reservoir treatability analysis for a total of $256,500 and $99,000 to cover the cost of the design of an interim water supply to Account #4-100-42610-3170. The motion carried:

I figure they are up to about $4 million by now, for a public water supply that is based on a reservoir that has/had a dump sitting in it.

Laundry List (off the top of my head)

No public notice of meetings
Surprise agenda items
improper relationship and conflict of interest with Draper Aden
Surprise closed meetings that only certain members of the public are allowed to go to
millions of dollars chasing a water system that has only one client
giveaway of valuable county land at an undervalued price to questionable developers
secret commissions on secret land sales that happen weeks before close of bids
paperwork from those deals disappearing for over two years
a Grand Jury who couldn’t find a crime in any of that secret sale deal
Commonwealth’s Attorney and County Attorney are the same person
hiring engineers that are being sued over landfill operations to check the dump out
secret assurances to developers that water will be provided to them

Time is up. It’s time to elect more responsible people to office in Prince Edward County. Luckily, some quality people are going to run. The problem? I am not sure they will arrive in office in time to save this county.

Mike Signer for Lieutenant Governor – Vote June 9, 2009

Union Endorsements For Mike Signer

Big announcement from the Signer Campaign this evening…

MIKE SIGNER CAMPAIGN ANNOUNCES 26 UNION ENDORSEMENTS

ARLINGTON, VA – The Mike Signer campaign is pleased to announce the endorsements of the Fairfax Deputy Sheriffs Coalition I.U.P.A. Local 5016, the DC Building Trades Council and all ten locals of the United Transportation Union of Virginia.

“The Fairfax Deputy Sheriffs Coalition I.U.P.A. Local 5016 is proud to endorse Mike Signer for Lt. Governor in the Democratic Primary on June 9,” said Kevin Pittman, president of the Fairfax Deputy Sheriffs Coalition I.U.P.A. Local 5016. “Mike’s vision of turning the office of Lt. Governor into a public advocate rather than a place holder and his introduction of bold initiatives into this race has made him the best candidate to support. In addition to his vocal support of the Employee Free Choice Act, Mike introduced a jobs plan that will strengthen our economy and help keep police and deputy sheriffs on our streets ensuring Virginia citizens remain safe everyday. As Lt. Governor, Mike will stand with the men and women in uniform who protect the citizens of Fairfax and our Commonwealth everyday he is in office.’

“Mike has shown an enthusiasm for protecting workers’ rights,” said Walter Yeatts, legislative director of the United Transportation Union of Virginia. “He has surrounded himself with people who have fought hard for Virginia’s workers. Mike has bravely and publicly taken positions that have given us confidence that he too will fight for working Virginians.”

A full list of endorsing unions follows below.

“Mike Signer will be a public advocate for working Virginians and this string of endorsements demonstrates that,” said Christian Rickers, campaign spokesperson. “Mike’s strong support from organized labor is one more reason why he is the strongest candidate and best equipped to defeat Bill Bolling in November. Democrats need to elect a true progressive who who will fight for their values to take on Bill Bolling. Now that this is a two person race, voters have a clear choice between someone who will stand up and fight for their issues and an alternative.”

Endorsing Unions:

Fairfax Deputy Sheriffs Coalition I.U.P.A. Local 5016
DC Building Trades Council
Asbestos Workers Local #24
Boilermakers Local #193
Bricklayers & Allied Crafts Local # 1
Electrical Workers Local #26
Elevator Constructors Local #10
Iron Workers Local #5
Operating Engineers Local #77
Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons #891
Painters District Council #51
Plumbers Local #5
Reinforced Rodmen Local #201
Roofers & Waterproofers Local #30
Sheet Metal Workers Local #100
Sprinkler Fitters Local #669
Steamfitters Local #602
10 Locals of the United Transportation Union of Virginia

Mike Signer, candidate for Lt. Governor

Mike Signer has taken a bold stance on the rights of workers to organize and to make a better life for themselves. This is only one of his bold ideas for our Commonwealth.

He deserves credit for being out front on several important issues before the Commonwealth and its leaders.

I consider Mike to be the kind of leader that will transform the Office of Lieutenant Governor to one of advocacy for the citizens of this Commonwealth. He is a problem-solver, and knows how to negotiate.

He’s  experienced, youthful, and ready to go to work for us right away next January.

Mike Signer for Lieutenant Governor.

Southside Messenger Newspaper Details FOIA Abuses by PE Board of Supervisors

The last two weeks has brought articles from the Southside Messenger that have detailed problems with a meeting of the Board of Supervisors, and about the proposed land sale in Prince Edward County. This is the only local media to outline problems with these issues.

Wilkie Chaffin, a reporter for the Messenger, has detailed what he believes are the problems with a meeting called by the Board of Supervisors of Prince Edward County at Hampden-Sidney College on April 22, 2009. He starts with some history, in that Prince Edward County abuses of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act have been documented at his newspaper in July 2008. These abuses and unlawful acts are nothing new in the county, in fact, are the norm rather than the exception.

He goes on to detail the unlawful acts just surrounding this meeting. First up: He documents that the notice provided to the public was inadequate and not within the FOIA law, in that notice was given two days in advance (I say 1.5 days) of the meeting, when the law clearly states there will be three days notice unless an emergency meeting was being called. He continues with the facts surrounding the justification of County officials of the meeting that ended up being a closed meeting that was not advertised.

2. At the April 22 meeting, forty or more of the invited, non-Board citizens were gathered for the Board meeting. Supervisors left the room where citizens expected the Board to meet, went to a small, outer room, called the meeting to order and voted to go into closed (secret) session. Since citizens, including this reporter, did not know that supervisors were meeting, the vote to go into closed session was apparently not done in an open meeting and was a violation of FOIA Section 2.2-3712, A. County officials later made two attempts to justify this action.

a. At first, County officials said that since these votes took place in a public location, even though it was not the location of the meeting, it was legal. That is, even though the majority, and probably all, of the citizens who came to the meeting did not know the meeting had started, and would not have heard the reason for the closed session, the Board’s action was still legal. There is nothing in the Virginia FOIA laws that suggests that citizens are expected to follow or search for members of a governmental body in order to be present if the body decides to go into closed session.

b. Later, County representatives gave a completely different justification for what had happened. This time, the explanation was that since this meeting was a continuation of a previous meeting (a reconvened meeting), what really mattered was how the meeting was announced two days earlier at the previous meeting. And, since the outer room was announced as the location of the meeting, what the Board did was legal. Except for Board members and County employees, the majority, if not all, of other people at the meeting could not possibly have known that a vote had taken place and the meeting was a closed session. This certainly violates the principle of the requirement for a public vote to go into closed session. Even though this approach may technically meet the closed session requirement, there is another problem. If the Board claims that this outer room was the official location of the meeting, then the FOIA meeting notices that were posted in the usual public location and those sent to interested citizens did not contain information about this location. This would be a violation of FOIA Law 2.2-3707, E.

He goes on to discuss how the meeting, closed or not, did not get started or have any discussions until after the meal was served. Some citizens and local officials only got an invitation to a luncheon to discuss a prospective business that might locate in the county.

He also notes how the law provides for the number or type of guests that can be present at a closed meeting.

4. This reporter learned later that Supervisors claimed they were going into closed session to discuss a prospective business where no previous announcement concerning the business has been made. Normally, this exemption is used when the premature announcement of the type of business, the name the business, or the details of the proposed agreement with the county might damage the possible negotiating position of the county or somehow harm the prospective business. In this case, this could not possibly be the reason, since more than 60 people were invited to hear the presentation about the proposed business, including approximately 30 attendees with no official connection to the business/industry under discussion. The meeting was nothing more than an announcement, with preprinted documents, of a new business/industry expected to move to Prince Edward County. In fact, the meeting invitations sent to citizens said they were being cordially invited to lunch with a prospective industry, and did not mention that the Board of Supervisors would be meeting. This is not a legitimate exemption to FOIA open meeting requirements and is a violation of Virginia Law 2.2-3712, C.

5. County officials were also questioned about why some citizens with no official connection to the proposed business/industry received invitations to this meeting, while other citizens were prohibited from attending. County officials said that the prospective business/industry decided who would be invited. Since the Board of Supervisors was holding the meeting, only they could have officially decided who would attend. Code Section 2.2-3712, F says that nonmembers of a governmental body are allowed to participate in a closed session of a meeting, if “their presence will reasonably aid the public body in its consideration of a topic that is the subject of the meeting.” Certainly many of the invited guests would not fall into this category. The way citizens were chosen to be invited to this meeting was a violation of FOIA Code Section 2.2-3712, F.

My questions are really simple ones. Why did the County Attorney/Commonwealth’s Attorney think this was a lawful meeting? (Remember, they are the same person) Who will do something about these abuses? Does it take a lawsuit or at least a court appearance by the principals to straighten this out?

Why do county officials get away with this behavior? Who will stop them?