When citizens fear their government, something is amiss
Two stories that should be disconcerting to any citizen activist. One local government story that has gotten attention across Virginia is the ongoing saga in Gloucester County. There’s plenty out there about this controversy if you want to read more about it. The long and short of it, though, (summarized here in an article about recent citizen outrage), is that a majority of the county board and the sheriff were indicted for conspiring to fire the county administrator.
Not only were the charges thrown out, and not only was the county ordered to pay part of the $125,000 in legal fees amassed by the Supervisors, but a group of citizens who circulated a petition to remove the gang of four were ordered to pay $85,000 in legal fees.
Outrageous.
Fortunately, sanity is prevailing in the General Assembly. Tamara Dietrich at the Daily Press has more:
In the next few weeks and if sanity prevails, the General Assembly will teach the judge that here in America, you can’t blast citizens for exercising their constitutional rights — then thwack them with a bill on top of it.
Because of Parker, two local Republican delegates — Tom Gear of Hampton and Harvey B. Morgan of Middlesex — have filed measures in Richmond to protect citizens against being forced to pay removal costs, attorney fees or other sanctions, should those citizens have the audacity to petition to remove an elected official.
Sadly, the move seems to have already had a chilling effect in the southeast region of the state on our fundamental right to petition our government (First Amendment, if you’ve never had the chance to read the constitution but just don’t have the time to read the whole thing):
Just this week, Carl Holt of Newport News tried to raise signatures on a petition supporting a training center for children and adults with developmental disabilities. Innocent enough, right?
But some people, said Holt, who works at Northrop Grumman‘s Newport News shipyard, told him that “because of this thing in Gloucester, they were afraid to sign it. Can you believe that?”
He tried to explain that the two situations weren’t similar at all, he said, but couldn’t change their minds. They were just too gun-shy.
“This judge,” Holt said, “he just screwed everybody, basically.”
Past rulings and the general mood in the region seems to ensure that the ruling will be overturned, but this is still extremely troubling for any citizen activist. Petitioning the government is a fundamental right, and as these are elected officials, they become involved in the process by choice and should not expect that they are above reproach.
Closer to home, we have an odd story in which an activist in Front Royal has filed a complaint against a friend of a member of the Social Services Board. While the situation has to be settled by authorities and could be waived off as a simply overreaction, the story revolves around some more disconcerting actions by the Board member:
Pierceall said the reason that Burke approached him has to do with the relationship Burke has with Mathews. Pierceall has taken the social services board and Mathews to task on several issues recently, including audiotaping of meetings, which the board reinstated on Thursday.
Mathews tossed Pierceall from the board’s Dec. 18 after he took a photo of the panel. Pierceall is now videotaping the board meetings, which he did on Thursday.
Pierceall and Mathews also have a difference of opinion about him sending her e-mails. Pierceall told the board he should be able to contact Mathews that way, but she insisted that he should not continue to send her e-mails, but instead contact her through the Department of Social Services.
“I’m going to take this issue directly to the board of supervisors because in effect the board appointed her to the position,” Pierceall said. “In view of Mathews’ remarks concerning e-mails, the audio recording, I want some assurance from the board of supervisors that I don’t have to fear for my life if I go before the board of directors and make a comment.”
When elected officials and appointees get involved in government at any level, they should never believe for a second that their conduct is never outside of question, that anything they say can’t be used for or against them, or that constituents have no right to be heard by them. They have the right to disregard their constituents opinions–that’s why we have elections to maintain the balance of power. But citizens have the right to be heard and to share their opinions with other. Yes, Freedom of Information Laws protect some information that (rightly or wrongly) the government believes should be protected, but outside of that, citizens have the right to know the actions of their government. Anything short of respect for that right should be held with the utmost disdain.
