Rebuttal for Bubba: The Chairman of the Chesterfield County Republican Committee Speaks Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Posted by Conaway B. Haskins III in Uncategorized.trackback
You know, permitting political types to publish anonymously removes from them the necessity to back up publicly the assertions they make. To those of us inside the party, it is pretty obvious who wrote this piece in defense of Republicans permitting Democrat Ed Barber to unduly influence the BoS actions and attempts to stifle opposing testimony. Beyond this, I find it a disservice to Cong. Forbes to include him in this, probably without his knowledge. He has done a fine job and we are proud of him, but to use his accomplishments to support more questionable activities is a stretch of logical limits.
The real reason for not wanting to be tagged with writing this piece is that when people join the committee, they agree to support only Republicans. I believe you are doing a disservice to the people of the county by permitting such unaccountable publication. You can be assured that if you get anything from me, it will be signed by me. Please think about this as you move forward.
Larry Miller
Chairman
Chesterfield County Republican Committee
————-
Mr. Miller,
Thanks for expressing your concerns. I understand your issues with anonymity for bloggers, but this is a vital function of the medium. When possible, I encourage all of my writers to publish under their own names, but in certain instances (and at their request), writing under cover of a pseudonym is called for. The reason that I allow a free flow of comments on the blog is just for what you’ve stated – to rebut opinions or analysis that one feels are lacking or untrue. Thus, I ask your permission to post your message – unabridged – as a retort.
Though it may sound a bit overblown, I’d hearken back to the Federalist Papers, in which Madison, Hamilton & Jay published under the name “Publius.” Often, what they were offering to was not truth, per se, but their opinions, reasoning, and logic behind supporting their version of the fledgling American Republic. In no way does South of the James equal the Federalist Papers, but the blogging & new media community as a whole does indeed parallel this phenomenon – citizens expressing their views and being subjected to the judgment of the public.
Again, I truly appreciate your take on that post, and I look forward to having you submit something to me which will be published just as you wrote it, subject only to proofreading.
Best wishes,
Conaway Haskins
Mr. Conaway Haskins invited comments. Frankly, I got lost in the back and forth of the issue, but since I don’t know enough to say anything worthwhile anyway, my comment is about anonymous blogging.
I believe in the freedom to do it – blog anonymously. Yet, I don’t respect it and give it far less credibility than the word of a person willing to put their name to their words. I was raised that “your word is your bond”.
If you are a politician and feel you can’t say what you want for attribution, then either your words are too skewed or your courage is too lacking or you just lack the honor to make your word your bond.
Call ‘em as you see ‘em. And be accountable for your own words. My mother also advised to never say anything to another person that I didn’t want to see in the newspaper. Good advice indeed.
The blog is another, better in many cases, newspaper. Say your piece and put your name on it.
Merry CHRISTmas.
Mr. Miller, I take no issue with the “pledge” whereby Republicans agree to support only Republican candidates for office. On the contrary, I have taken it myself at those times when I have been a member of my own local county committee and have lived by it. However, I did not take Mr. Bubba’s admiration of the working relationship between Barber, Miller, and King as the support of a Democrat (Barber), per se, rather as support of the concept of elected officials reaching across party lines for the greater benefit of their communities. I see nothing wrong in that. On the contrary, would that more of our politicians could find the courage to rise above partisanship, finding common ground and enabling them to govern with an eye to the greater good of their constituencies. I must wonder if the local Democrats are as displeased with Mr. Barber as the Republicans appear to be with Mr./Ms. K. Miller and Mr. King.
Like Mr. Bowden, I got a little bit lost in the back and forth. I certainly didn’t see anything particularly controversial about “Bubba’s” post.
I’m disappointed in Mr. Miller’s email. He’s apparently opposed to anonymous blogging and that’s an entirely justifiable position, but he offers very little that is substantive in disputing “Bubba.”
Instead of making a positive point about Republicans supporting or working with Democrats when it’s the right thing to do (see Ms. Cheney’s comment), he brings up the “agree to support only Republicans” position. That’s a fine pledge, but it seems out of place here and it contributes to the increasing perception that Republicans are close-minded and disdain bi-partisanship of any kind.
With large swaths of the electorate, that’s a killer.
good lord, Larry Miller makes it sound like being a republican in chesterfield county is like joining the mob or something..
“The real reason for not wanting to be tagged with writing this piece is that when people join the committee, they agree to support only Republicans.”
Ok I get that to be a member of the Republican Commitee you must support Republicans. So do you guys in Chesterfield have a induction ceremony where you drink the blood of a lamb too? Silly; this is what I hate about partsian politics – especially on a local level where the decisions should not be based upon such silly/trite criteria…
Maybe I’m missing the point of Mr. Miller’s e-mail to you Conway?
I took Mr. Miller’s comments to mean that he’s really pissed off with a GOP insider who both gave credit to a prominent Democrat and revealed Republican discord. I find it instructive, in light of recent events, and the prior post from Bubba, that “sins of ommission” were seemingly committed. Maybe there’s a growing rift in the local GOP committee over certain issues related to growth and development?
– Conaway
First let me begin by saying that I am not a member of the Republican Party and I have never been to the Republican Committee meeting. I met Larry Miller after he learned of my very vocal efforts in Chesterfield on the Western Middle School decision. He invited me to some of Republican gatherings which I have attended. I had not been politically active beforehand and I can only blame myself for that.
It has become my mission to get to know those in office and those that will potentially run in the upcoming elections. When it comes time to vote again in Chesterfield, I will know more about the individual running and if I think he/she will properly represent me in office. I will support that individual regardless of their party.
When it came to this past governor’s race, I voted for Kaine because I liked his message and I really didn’t like Kilgore’s lack of vision for Virginia or his negative campaign. While some might not like whom I voted for, I hope you can at least respect the fact that I will tell you who I voted for and why. I read everything I could get me hands on and I watched the political debates so I consider myself an informed voter to the best of my ability. I also voted for Bob McDonnell because I liked his message and his reputation and I didn’t like what I read on Creigh Deeds. Voting for both parties in this past election I guess would make me an Independent. I am after all capable of thinking for myself while intently listening to others. Does this make me unsuitable to join a Political Party? I hope that the Republican Party remembers that their are alot more voters than members of a party.
My message would be this…..some voters in Chesterfield are issued minded and are looking for individuals that have a vision for solving infrastructure needs. In no way am I against growth, I applaud it. I would hope that the next BOS would become united as one for the county and not pit district against district. At this time, my view is that the three in control are hurting the Matoaca District and Chesterfield. They may not like our district supervisor or our planning commissioner, but they are what we have. I think that they should respect them. I would also hope that they would take into consideration the residents of this district that have been standing up for themselves and pleading with them not to forget about our needs. We all know that we will have the opportunity to elect new officials, but much damage can and has been done before that will happen. We will get further and further behind with our infrastructure needs.
We also know how important that it is that we properly spend Bond Referendum money. It will not be until 2012 or beyond before we can even go to the voters again for more money. It is my opinion that when the public voted YES for bond money for school projects, we were entrusting our elected officials both School Board and Board of Supervisors to locate the facilities to meet the needs of current needs before future growth. Ideally we would like to be planning ahead, but we know that it is difficult when you are so far behind. The 2004 Bond Referendum was not site specific, but we did have a Public Facilities Plan which supported the intention of the school board. We were blindsided when the BOS decided to change the PFP to meet their agenda. We know that the PFP was approved by all boards in April 2004, but discussion to change it began in August 04. The decison to relocate the school was not made publicly because of their fear that the bond would not pass in November 04. One of the school projects was listed as Middle School – Clover Hill; however, this school is not being located in the Clover Hill District, the Clover Hill area or where the students live that will be attending it. While you might want to say that I am only concerned with getting a school located in my backyard, that it untrue. I do know that my child is attending a Middle School at 145% capacity and the next closer middle school has 1600 students with no room for expansion and this school is the largest middle school in the county.
I’m waiting to see if the Republican Party will be looking for candidates that “get the bigger picture” not just for my district, but for all five.
I will support the political candidate that has a vision and a willingness to stand up for the citizens of my district as well as a vision for the entire county no matter what party decides to endorse them.
Like it or not, blogging has become an influential element of our political and public policy process.
The anonymity it provides those who prefer it also affects, or limits, the credibility of their comments. Just as anyone can create a web site on the Internet and say virtually anything they chose to say, regardless of the ablitiy or inability to substantiate the information, bloggers who choose anonymity make the conscious choice to reduce the value of their comments with the choice to be anonymous.
Larry Miller has served the Chesterfield County Republican Committee with distinction. In his current position as Chairman, Larry has consistently stood for the core principles of the Republican Party and supported the candidates for public office who chose to run under the Republican banner. Chairman Miller has also been willing to challenge elected officials, Republican or otherwise, where he determined such challenge appropriate or where he observed the thoughts, opinions and best interest of the citizens were being overlooked, if not ignored.
I continue to advocate that the best means of effecting or influencing change in the operations of government, at any level, is from within the structure of the two-party system. The Republican Party and its principles regarding free enterprise, personal responsibility, the role of government and that faith in God, as recognized by our Founding Fathers, is essential to the moral fibre of our nation mirror my own personal beliefs in these and many other areas.
I encourage those with like principles and who want their voice to be heard to join the Chesterfield County Republican Committee. From within the party, your voice will be heard. From within the party, you will be recognized. From within the party, you will be able to play a role in determining the candidate(s) that will represent the Republican Party.
From the outside, you will be limited to choosing from among the candidates others have chosen FOR you!
In response to awcheney’s post: Certainly we can all applaud a politician’s reaching across party lines for the greater benefit of their communities. The problem arises when that willingness to reach out cannot extend across the platform to include other elected officials who are members of the policitian’s own party. When official committees established to take care of certain issues are bypassed in favor of gatherings of selected officials who have agreed to meet privately on matters of supreme importance to all the county’s citizens, then it is questionable whether they are governing “with an eye to the greater good of their constituencies.” The Freedom of Information Act requires meetings of official committees to be open to the public. Somehow, it does not seem to be of benefit to the community when public officials choose to conduct the public’s business behind closed doors even though they reached across party lines to meet with a member of another political party. Of far greater importance, I believe, is focusing on conducting the public’s business in the most efficient and effective manner possible, preferably in the public’s view.
A number of issues have arisen recently in Chesterfield that would indicate that the politicians should spend more time focusing on the problems before them along with potential solutions and less time trying to determine the motivations of citizens who speak out on the issues. It is quite often obvious that elected officials of both parties do not value the input of citizens. Inquiries go unanswered. Calls to remedy serious shortcomings in administrative functions are ignored, and the messenger is identified as the problem. At public hearings, some citizens reporting on serious issues are cut off while others are allowed to prattle about almost anything.
As to whether or not the Democrats are displeased with Mr. Barber, I do not know. However, I find it instructive that under his leadership of the county government this year, three Chesterfield citizens have been ordered from the public meeting room, including one woman who was ordered outside the building in the cold after midnight and one man who was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct. The judge dismissed those charges this week. There are sometimes three sheriff’s deputies present in Chesterfield’s public meeting room during meetings. Officials can now call a recess and stop the cameras at their discretion to deal with a citizen speaking at a public hearing. Many see this as one more attempt to control the citizen’s free speech rights and their right to view their government in action. What are these officials afraid of–the power of free speech?
Bi-partisanship is a noble, worthwhile and necessary part of conducting the business of government in a free society. By its very definition, it requires that those representing at least 2 political parties work together for the common good.
John Stuart Mill stated in his treatise on Liberty (19th century): “It is an essential part of democracy that minorities should be adequately represented. No real democracy…is possible without it.” In all actions of government, it is essential that the majority include, or reach across the invisible lines that separate them, the “minority” in the decision making process. The fact that the majority has greater numbers does not mean they are the possessors of all truth.
A solution to the situation encountered in Chesterfield County in 2005 is for the chairman of the Board of Supervisors to be elected at large, i.e. by all of the registered voters of Chesterfield County. Adding one additional magisterial district and electing the chairman at large would then give Chesterfield County seven supervisors instead of five.
Election of the chairman at large would permit the voters in Chesterfield County to make the decision regarding this important leadership position and enable those seeking the chairmanship to put before the people their agenda for the four year term of their office.
The elected chairman would then have a mandate from all of the voters of Chesterfield County on which to base a bi-partisan relationship with the other supervisors.
Chesterfield County has outgrown both the current 5 member Board and the manner in which the chairmanship is determined.
The time for change — is NOW!
Now Bob offers the most significant insight of this whole conversation in my view: reorganize the BOS (PC, too?) to include two additional members including an “at large” member. Even better, let the people elect the chairperson. The current process of rotating leadership puts status and recognition over competence. That’s scary.
Conway,
I agree with Will V.
I think he is right on track.
I have added South of the James to my blogroll. We disagree on most things, but your work is excellent. Keep up the good work and if you ever really get SOUTH OF THE JAMES(SWVA) give me a yell.
I gather that the two principal areas of conflict precipitated by the original “Bubba” post of December 5th are partisanship vs. statesmanship and the real, or perceived, censorship of public opinion.
In my opinion, the issue of partisanship vs. statesmanship is a no-brainer: Statesmanship is a necessary element of effective governing. Call me old-fashioned, but I can’t envision it any other way. On the other hand, censorship of public opinion is in no way an element of effective governing in any form of democratic society…totalitarian yes, but not democratic. I am not naïve, however. I realize that it has existed, and occasionally still exists in our country to varying degrees but, fortunately, has been unable to flourish for lack of fertile ground in a country which was built upon a foundation of observance of the rights of the individual in governance. Sadly, I realize that these rights have indeed come under attack in recent years in the name of security, but I have enough faith in the American people to believe that they will awaken to that realization before we reach the point of no return. Then again, perhaps I am naïve.
But that aside, I believe that the situation with the BOS of Chesterfield County sounds far more like an issue of arrogance rather than one of intentional censorship, although the effect is essentially the same. The difference is that we do not live in a totalitarian society and such arrogance is easily revealed and punished in the light of public opinion itself and, much as a recalcitrant child is redeemable, perhaps these Members are as well, particularly if they are indeed doing a good job despite this arrogance. As politicians, I would imagine that they are well aware that this will ultimately be for the electorate to decide.
We had a similar situation here in Prince William County some years ago, actually very much like what you are experiencing with your own board in Chesterfield, although no citizens were arrested or forcibly removed from BOS meetings that I can recall. PWC was going through similar growth pangs as your county would seem to be experiencing now. Despite that, the light of public opinion made short shrift of it and it became barely a blip on the political radar screen in the end. I suspect that you will see a similar conclusion to this problem in Chesterfield.
I think AW gets it!
[...] State-level players like Dr. Toni-Michelle Travis of George Mason University, Don Scoggins of the Frederick Douglass Republican Forum, and Josh Chernila of Raising Kaine (and now of the Jim Webb for Senate campaign) took the time and energy to create original work for me. Locally, the blog featured notable policymakers and advocates such as Dan Gecker, the Democratic Vice-Chairman of Chesterfield County Planning Commission; Rev. Mike Harton of the Responsible Growth Alliance of Chesterfield; Dr. Tom Pakurar of Hands Across the Lake; gadfly Shelly Schuetz of Go West Chesterfield; Larry Miller, former chairman of the Chesterfield County Republican Committee, and of course, the pseudonym-enhanced “Bubba,” a Richmond-area Republican leader. These folks all contributed intelligent commentary on a number of issues, and this blog would have merely been one man’s drivel had they not been around. [...]