Goldman for Mayor - 31 July 2008 - For Immediate Release -Contact, 804-833-6313
Elected Mayor Law is clear on how Acting Chief Administrative Officer is to be Chosen
If City Hall and City Council had been doing their job, not feuding, there would be no problem
(Richmond) - Paul Goldman, candidate for Mayor and author of the Elected Mayor law said today "that City Hall and City Council once again - does it ever end? - continue to hold Richmond up to ridicule by failing to believe they have any responsibility to make sure they follow the clear mandates of the City Charter."
"Yet all this raises a bigger question: Does the local Richmond media care either whether the Charter is followed or not, and to the extent they signal a negative answer, then should it be surprising that our politicians believe they can disregard the Charter whenever it suits their purpose, since without the media informing the public, how can more than only a handful of residents know what is in the City Charter?"
In a statement, Mr. Goldman discussed the relevant section of the Elected Mayor Law as it was incorporated into the City Charter:
"In 2004, in passing the Elected Mayor law, the General Assembly enacted the following section of the City Charter:
"§ 5.07. Acting chief administrative officer.
The mayor shall, with the advice and consent of a majority of the members of council, designate the head of a department, bureau or other officer appointed by the chief administrative officer, to act as chief administrative officer in case of the absence, incapacity, death or resignation of the chief administrative officer, until his/her return to duty or the appointment of his/her successor. An acting chief administrative officer shall serve at the pleasure of the mayor."
"To the best of my knowledge, this 2004 revision remains as part of the City Charter. According, City Hall and City Council should have long ago taken care to carry out their responsibilities under this section, namely to have an Acting CAO already designated.
Apparently, this was not done and no doubt each side with be blaming the other for the situation. But frankly, I believe most Richmonders are as tired and fed-up as I am with the constant blame gaming from City Hall and City Council.
But even more importantly right now is this: We need to make City Hall and City Council understand that the City Charter is not just something they follow when it suits their purposes.
Moreover, if the Richmond media wants to be taken seriously in the area of public policy, as opposed to being seen as their own version of tabloid or blog.com journalism, then reporters and editors have to likewise take responsibility for what they do and don't do.
Bottom line: If § 5.07 remains the law in Richmond, then it must be followed and the public must be informed of the law's existence.
As they say, for purposes of full disclosure, my being the only candidate for Mayor who actually wanted to give the people the right to elect their Mayor and who actually did the grunt work, from writing the law to leading the petition drive, might I suppose explain why I apparently take a different view from the others, taking such an old-fashioned view that City Hall and City Council should be required to follow the law."
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
VP choice prediction: Obama wants running mate who didn't support the Iraq War.
The Goldman Blog
I believe Governor Tim Kaine is at the top of Senator Obama's short-list for VEEP, indeed, as I will show, the list may only have two people on it.
Here is the logical deduction, or at least an attempt at it. Unfortunately, to do the math right, it takes many steps, there is no way to do it in a few paragraphs and give the logic.
1. Senator Obama's 2002 opposition to the Iraq War was fundamental to his primary candidacy, and he continues to make his 2002 opposition to the war vs McCain's 2002 vote for the War a fundamental litmus test for November, using the same successful construct - Judgment vs Experience - that worked brilliantly against Senator Clinton.
By November, the Economy, not the War, is likely to decide the election based on historical analysis. But right now - and that is when the decision is being made - it is the Peace Issue, not the Prosperity Issue, that is dominating the Obama vs McCain battle.
And at this moment, the battle is less one of specific issues and more of defining them in a broad way with the general public. This is normal at this juncture of a campaign, at almost any level really.
2. Thus, Senator Obama has to ask himself one fundamental question at the very start of his VEEP decision-making:
Do I want to run with a Vice-Presidential nominee who is on record as having supported going to War with Iraq, either voting for the 2002 War Resolution or having voiced support for the invasion at the time?
To be sure, the 2002 Joint Congressional Resolution authorizing the President to invade Iraq if he thought it necessary to protect America's national security left the decision to Mr. Bush, so in technical terms a vote for the Resolution was not, per se, a vote to go to War. 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, and 2004 Democratic vice-presidential nominee John Edwards made that point repeatedly in that year. But it didn't wash politically, even though it is legally true.
Politically, it was a vote for war, and the American people are not fools.
3. Obama's answer: No, unless I have no other viable option. HE KNOWS THAT if he chooses a pro-war running mate, THIS WILL be what the media use as the defining dimension to the selection, it will dominate the press conference held to announce the choice.
And Senator Obama knows this too: In the final analysis, his choice of a VEEP will be a big defining moment for him in the eyes of the public.
4. Accordingly, I think any pro-war voting Senator is out. This eliminates Bayh, Biden, and Clinton.
5. Here is the list of all the anti-War votes on the Iraq War Resolution: .
Akaka (D-HI)Bingaman (D-NM)Boxer (D-CA)Byrd (D-WV)Chafee (R-RI)Conrad (D-ND)Corzine (D-NJ)Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)Feingold (D-WI)Graham (D-FL)Inouye (D-HI)Jeffords (I-VT)Kennedy (D-MA)Leahy (D-VT)Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)Murray (D-WA)Reed (D-RI)Sarbanes (D-MD)Stabenow (D-MI)Wellstone (D-MN)Wyden (D-OR)
Among the Democrats, you have, in theory, potential running mates in Bingaman, Boxer, Conrad, Corzine, Durbin, Levin, Murray, Reed, Stabenow, and Wyden, under the anti-war analysis. If Obama were from any state but Illinois, I believe Durbin would be the pick.
The two Michigan Senators - Levin and Stabenow - come from one of the key states this year, but there are various reasons why they are not likely to be selected. Truth is, none of the anti-war Senators is considered a good fit for Obama, with Senator Jack Reed probably being the top pick here, followed by either Kent Conrad or Patty Murray. But the latter two are long-time Senators and thus they seem to have been eliminated by Obama saying he doesn't want a Washington insider, or at least someone who could be painted that way.
In that regard, Senator Reed, although a Congressman before moving up the Senate, is the best choice, having served in the military.
Net, Net: But for Reed, no anti-war Senator is likely to get to the final round.
6. Senator Jim Webb was on a paper a great VEEP fit, as he was not in the Senate in 2002, but as strong anti-war credentials yet was also President Reagan's Secretary of the Navy and a decorated military guy. Besides, Webb is super-smart, the anti-politician image, the whole package. But Webb said he didn't want in an almost Shermanesque way. As soldier, Webb would no doubt do his duty if asked, but when a guy says he doesn't want the VEEP thing, then Obama is going to respect that.
7. Senator McCaskill arrived in the Senate along with rookie Webb. She has proven to be a very effective pro-Obama campaign leader, she is savvy, good speaker, sharp on the issues and comes from the key state of Missouri. But she is not apparently under consideration.
8. So if you take out the sitting Senators, then you say: What about former Senators, former Governors, former top officials? A guy like former Governor and Senator George Mitchell, super-respected, savvy pol, would be a perfect choice if he wasn't a big time lobbyist now, the same for several other high profile former top DEM elected officials. Obama can not go there, and he knows it.
9. ERGO: Unless Senator Obama goes with an anti-war Senator like say a Reed, then logical deduction gets us to the sitting Governors. Moreover, it might be that Obama calculates that he should not go with either an pro-war or anti-war Senator, since this gives him maximum political flexibility, avoids a lot of questions, and as Emerson says, events are in the saddle and they ride mankind, in political strategy, having room to maneuver on the tough issues is worth more than all that Internet fund-raising.
10. Net, net: Senator Obama, by the process of elimination - the usual thing for VEEP choices historically - arrives at needing a sitting Governor, who has no 2002 position on the War, someone from a key state, someone he likes, you do the math.
Of course Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia is at the top of the short-list: he is likely the only one on the list except perhaps for Rhode Island Senator Reed. But it is better to go South or West, or even Midwest for Obama, the Northeast is the most reliable Democratic bastion in the country, the "Solid North" really, since except for New Hampshire, it has been as solid as the South in the last two presidential elections, indeed solid twice for Clinton.
Yet Reed has a great resume.
He is a Harvard lawyer though, so whether it be Kaine or Reed, it is Harvard Law ticket all the way.
Hillary is Yale and that might be a big problem too!
If the War is indeed the fundamental Colonel Travis line in the sand on the VEEP decision, then that leaves Kaine and Reed as perhaps the last guys standing.
I believe Governor Tim Kaine is at the top of Senator Obama's short-list for VEEP, indeed, as I will show, the list may only have two people on it.
Here is the logical deduction, or at least an attempt at it. Unfortunately, to do the math right, it takes many steps, there is no way to do it in a few paragraphs and give the logic.
1. Senator Obama's 2002 opposition to the Iraq War was fundamental to his primary candidacy, and he continues to make his 2002 opposition to the war vs McCain's 2002 vote for the War a fundamental litmus test for November, using the same successful construct - Judgment vs Experience - that worked brilliantly against Senator Clinton.
By November, the Economy, not the War, is likely to decide the election based on historical analysis. But right now - and that is when the decision is being made - it is the Peace Issue, not the Prosperity Issue, that is dominating the Obama vs McCain battle.
And at this moment, the battle is less one of specific issues and more of defining them in a broad way with the general public. This is normal at this juncture of a campaign, at almost any level really.
2. Thus, Senator Obama has to ask himself one fundamental question at the very start of his VEEP decision-making:
Do I want to run with a Vice-Presidential nominee who is on record as having supported going to War with Iraq, either voting for the 2002 War Resolution or having voiced support for the invasion at the time?
To be sure, the 2002 Joint Congressional Resolution authorizing the President to invade Iraq if he thought it necessary to protect America's national security left the decision to Mr. Bush, so in technical terms a vote for the Resolution was not, per se, a vote to go to War. 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, and 2004 Democratic vice-presidential nominee John Edwards made that point repeatedly in that year. But it didn't wash politically, even though it is legally true.
Politically, it was a vote for war, and the American people are not fools.
3. Obama's answer: No, unless I have no other viable option. HE KNOWS THAT if he chooses a pro-war running mate, THIS WILL be what the media use as the defining dimension to the selection, it will dominate the press conference held to announce the choice.
And Senator Obama knows this too: In the final analysis, his choice of a VEEP will be a big defining moment for him in the eyes of the public.
4. Accordingly, I think any pro-war voting Senator is out. This eliminates Bayh, Biden, and Clinton.
5. Here is the list of all the anti-War votes on the Iraq War Resolution: .
Akaka (D-HI)Bingaman (D-NM)Boxer (D-CA)Byrd (D-WV)Chafee (R-RI)Conrad (D-ND)Corzine (D-NJ)Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)Feingold (D-WI)Graham (D-FL)Inouye (D-HI)Jeffords (I-VT)Kennedy (D-MA)Leahy (D-VT)Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)Murray (D-WA)Reed (D-RI)Sarbanes (D-MD)Stabenow (D-MI)Wellstone (D-MN)Wyden (D-OR)
Among the Democrats, you have, in theory, potential running mates in Bingaman, Boxer, Conrad, Corzine, Durbin, Levin, Murray, Reed, Stabenow, and Wyden, under the anti-war analysis. If Obama were from any state but Illinois, I believe Durbin would be the pick.
The two Michigan Senators - Levin and Stabenow - come from one of the key states this year, but there are various reasons why they are not likely to be selected. Truth is, none of the anti-war Senators is considered a good fit for Obama, with Senator Jack Reed probably being the top pick here, followed by either Kent Conrad or Patty Murray. But the latter two are long-time Senators and thus they seem to have been eliminated by Obama saying he doesn't want a Washington insider, or at least someone who could be painted that way.
In that regard, Senator Reed, although a Congressman before moving up the Senate, is the best choice, having served in the military.
Net, Net: But for Reed, no anti-war Senator is likely to get to the final round.
6. Senator Jim Webb was on a paper a great VEEP fit, as he was not in the Senate in 2002, but as strong anti-war credentials yet was also President Reagan's Secretary of the Navy and a decorated military guy. Besides, Webb is super-smart, the anti-politician image, the whole package. But Webb said he didn't want in an almost Shermanesque way. As soldier, Webb would no doubt do his duty if asked, but when a guy says he doesn't want the VEEP thing, then Obama is going to respect that.
7. Senator McCaskill arrived in the Senate along with rookie Webb. She has proven to be a very effective pro-Obama campaign leader, she is savvy, good speaker, sharp on the issues and comes from the key state of Missouri. But she is not apparently under consideration.
8. So if you take out the sitting Senators, then you say: What about former Senators, former Governors, former top officials? A guy like former Governor and Senator George Mitchell, super-respected, savvy pol, would be a perfect choice if he wasn't a big time lobbyist now, the same for several other high profile former top DEM elected officials. Obama can not go there, and he knows it.
9. ERGO: Unless Senator Obama goes with an anti-war Senator like say a Reed, then logical deduction gets us to the sitting Governors. Moreover, it might be that Obama calculates that he should not go with either an pro-war or anti-war Senator, since this gives him maximum political flexibility, avoids a lot of questions, and as Emerson says, events are in the saddle and they ride mankind, in political strategy, having room to maneuver on the tough issues is worth more than all that Internet fund-raising.
10. Net, net: Senator Obama, by the process of elimination - the usual thing for VEEP choices historically - arrives at needing a sitting Governor, who has no 2002 position on the War, someone from a key state, someone he likes, you do the math.
Of course Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia is at the top of the short-list: he is likely the only one on the list except perhaps for Rhode Island Senator Reed. But it is better to go South or West, or even Midwest for Obama, the Northeast is the most reliable Democratic bastion in the country, the "Solid North" really, since except for New Hampshire, it has been as solid as the South in the last two presidential elections, indeed solid twice for Clinton.
Yet Reed has a great resume.
He is a Harvard lawyer though, so whether it be Kaine or Reed, it is Harvard Law ticket all the way.
Hillary is Yale and that might be a big problem too!
If the War is indeed the fundamental Colonel Travis line in the sand on the VEEP decision, then that leaves Kaine and Reed as perhaps the last guys standing.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Council, Wilder should do honorable thing, reimburse city for salaries paid from July 1 until they do their job and agree on a budget.
Goldman for Mayor - 25 July 2008 - For Immediate Release - 804-833-6313
First City Hall, First City Council in Richmond History to Fail to Agree on a Budget By July 1
"The Mayor and City Council should follow the lead of those members of the General Assembly who did the right thing, and refused to accept pay for the Special Transportation Session since it achieved nothing. The Mayor and City Council should reimburse the city for their salaries from July 1 until they both agree on the single most basic responsibility of any elected official: passing a budget each side accepts as the operative city budget for the new fiscal year."
(Richmond) - Paul Goldman, candidate for Mayor, said today that "it is time for City Hall and City Council to accept responsibility for the an unprecedented budget fiasco, the first time in the history of Richmond that City Hall and City Council have not agreed on a budget by July 1, the starting date of the fiscal year."
"I don't think any of this would have happened if the Mayor and Mr. Pantele, et. al knew they would not get paid for failing to fulfill their most basic responsibility, passing a budget each side would accept as lawful on July 1, the starting date of the city's fiscal year" Goldman said.
"The City Charter has a clear procedure that would have resolved these matters by now had the Mayor and the City Council done the right thing and followed the law. As the RTD editorial page notes this morning, I was the only candidate they could name who "has addressed the budget and related items" in my efforts to remind city officials of the Elected Mayor law revisions to the City Charter that reinforced this procedure."
"While the Pantele-led Council puts all the blame on the Wilder-led City Hall, and vice-versa, the truth is this: Both sides are to blame for the current state of the budget fiasco."
"Accordingly, starting July 1, 2008, both sides share responsibility for the unprecedented budget fiasco."
"Thus, given this continuing failure to do the most basic function of their jobs, each side should do the honorable thing and agree to reimburse the city for the salaries they will be paid from July 1 until they agree on a budget as required by the City Charter."
"Moreover, the longer these budget follies continue, the greater chance all Richmonders, or at least some of the citizenry, will be unnecessarily and unfairly hurt by the political fallout."
---------------------------------------- 30 -------------------------------------
First City Hall, First City Council in Richmond History to Fail to Agree on a Budget By July 1
"The Mayor and City Council should follow the lead of those members of the General Assembly who did the right thing, and refused to accept pay for the Special Transportation Session since it achieved nothing. The Mayor and City Council should reimburse the city for their salaries from July 1 until they both agree on the single most basic responsibility of any elected official: passing a budget each side accepts as the operative city budget for the new fiscal year."
(Richmond) - Paul Goldman, candidate for Mayor, said today that "it is time for City Hall and City Council to accept responsibility for the an unprecedented budget fiasco, the first time in the history of Richmond that City Hall and City Council have not agreed on a budget by July 1, the starting date of the fiscal year."
"I don't think any of this would have happened if the Mayor and Mr. Pantele, et. al knew they would not get paid for failing to fulfill their most basic responsibility, passing a budget each side would accept as lawful on July 1, the starting date of the city's fiscal year" Goldman said.
"The City Charter has a clear procedure that would have resolved these matters by now had the Mayor and the City Council done the right thing and followed the law. As the RTD editorial page notes this morning, I was the only candidate they could name who "has addressed the budget and related items" in my efforts to remind city officials of the Elected Mayor law revisions to the City Charter that reinforced this procedure."
"While the Pantele-led Council puts all the blame on the Wilder-led City Hall, and vice-versa, the truth is this: Both sides are to blame for the current state of the budget fiasco."
"Accordingly, starting July 1, 2008, both sides share responsibility for the unprecedented budget fiasco."
"Thus, given this continuing failure to do the most basic function of their jobs, each side should do the honorable thing and agree to reimburse the city for the salaries they will be paid from July 1 until they agree on a budget as required by the City Charter."
"Moreover, the longer these budget follies continue, the greater chance all Richmonders, or at least some of the citizenry, will be unnecessarily and unfairly hurt by the political fallout."
---------------------------------------- 30 -------------------------------------
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Wilder, Council failing to follow City Charter: budget feud can be fairly resolved by following the process put into Charter for this situation.
Goldman for Mayor - 24 July 2008 - For Immediate Release - Contact, 804-833-6313
City Charter, as amended by the Elected Mayor law revisions, can resolve the budget feud without a wasteful law suit.
(Richmond) - Paul Goldman, candidate for Mayor, said today that " the City Charter, as amended by the Elected Mayor law revisions, anticipated the kind of fiscally irresponsible budget politics we are seeing from City Hall and City Council by having in place a process that will work to balance the budget and do the people's business without a law suit if our elected officials will put the public interest ahead of their political budget feuding."
Goldman pointed out that "Section 6.16 of the City Charter, according to what is available on the General Assembly website, reads as follows after the last General Assembly revision:
6.16. Amendments after adoption.
..(c) If at any time during the fiscal year it appears probable to the Mayor that the revenue or fund balances available will be insufficient to finance the expenditures for which appropriations have been authorized, the Mayor shall report to the city council without delay, indicating the estimated amount of the deficit, any remedial action taken by the Mayor and recommendations as to any other steps to be taken. The council shall then take such further action as it deems necessary to prevent or reduce any deficit, and for that purpose it may by ordinance reduce one or more appropriations. [Emphasis added].
In a statement, Goldman continued:
"The above process offers a responsible way to resolve the current feud between City Hall and City Council without a law suit, assuming each side will put the public interest ahead of their selfish political interests.
Since the Wilder Administration say it's budget is the legal one, then Section 6.16 imposes a clear legal obligation on the Mayor given his statement that his budget has a big deficit.
The Mayor can not have it both ways: if is right and the City Council failed to pass it's budget in the time required by the Charter, then he has now failed to report to the Council as required by the Charter.
As for the City Council, they seem incapable of showing any leadership except to leading the way to the local courthouse. .
But as we can see from the above Charter section, this is totally unnecessary.
Instead, the Council should call on the Mayor to report to the city council without delay since Mr. Wilder says the budget is millions in the red. Given the language in the Charter, the Mayor has no option, since the word "shall" has an accepted legal definition. Moreover, if the Mayor were to refuse, then he would effectively negate his legal claim as regards his budget.
Once the Mayor responds as legally required, the Council can then make whatever appropriate budget adjustments a majority feel is necessary. The Mayor then has the option of using his veto, and the Council the power of override.
While it is not a perfect solution, it serves the public interest in a responsible, timely and balanced fashion while avoiding the acrimony of yet another expensive law suit if City Hall and the City Council are finally willing to put the public interest first."
-------------------30----------------
City Charter, as amended by the Elected Mayor law revisions, can resolve the budget feud without a wasteful law suit.
(Richmond) - Paul Goldman, candidate for Mayor, said today that " the City Charter, as amended by the Elected Mayor law revisions, anticipated the kind of fiscally irresponsible budget politics we are seeing from City Hall and City Council by having in place a process that will work to balance the budget and do the people's business without a law suit if our elected officials will put the public interest ahead of their political budget feuding."
Goldman pointed out that "Section 6.16 of the City Charter, according to what is available on the General Assembly website, reads as follows after the last General Assembly revision:
6.16. Amendments after adoption.
..(c) If at any time during the fiscal year it appears probable to the Mayor that the revenue or fund balances available will be insufficient to finance the expenditures for which appropriations have been authorized, the Mayor shall report to the city council without delay, indicating the estimated amount of the deficit, any remedial action taken by the Mayor and recommendations as to any other steps to be taken. The council shall then take such further action as it deems necessary to prevent or reduce any deficit, and for that purpose it may by ordinance reduce one or more appropriations. [Emphasis added].
In a statement, Goldman continued:
"The above process offers a responsible way to resolve the current feud between City Hall and City Council without a law suit, assuming each side will put the public interest ahead of their selfish political interests.
Since the Wilder Administration say it's budget is the legal one, then Section 6.16 imposes a clear legal obligation on the Mayor given his statement that his budget has a big deficit.
The Mayor can not have it both ways: if is right and the City Council failed to pass it's budget in the time required by the Charter, then he has now failed to report to the Council as required by the Charter.
As for the City Council, they seem incapable of showing any leadership except to leading the way to the local courthouse. .
But as we can see from the above Charter section, this is totally unnecessary.
Instead, the Council should call on the Mayor to report to the city council without delay since Mr. Wilder says the budget is millions in the red. Given the language in the Charter, the Mayor has no option, since the word "shall" has an accepted legal definition. Moreover, if the Mayor were to refuse, then he would effectively negate his legal claim as regards his budget.
Once the Mayor responds as legally required, the Council can then make whatever appropriate budget adjustments a majority feel is necessary. The Mayor then has the option of using his veto, and the Council the power of override.
While it is not a perfect solution, it serves the public interest in a responsible, timely and balanced fashion while avoiding the acrimony of yet another expensive law suit if City Hall and the City Council are finally willing to put the public interest first."
-------------------30----------------
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Pantele should step-down as Council head due to growing budget mess, law suit threat.
Goldman for Mayor - 22 July 2008 - For Immediate Release - Contact, 804-833-6313
"Wilder-led City Hall and the Pantele-McQuinn led Council have pushed Richmond into growing budget mess by putting their personal political agendas ahead of the public interest"
"The latest law suit threat shows that Bill fails to realize that given the anti-Wilder platform of his candidacy for Mayor, it is not in the public interest from him to remain as the head of the City Council, it mires this whole mess in mayoral election politics."
(Richmond) - Paul Goldman, candidate for Mayor, said today that the latest law suit threat from City Council shows that "it doesn't serve the public interest, nor help resolve our growing budget mess, for Bill Pantele to stay as head of the Council while he tries to get elected Mayor on an anti-Wilder platform."
"The fact is that both the Wilder-led City Hall and the Pantele-McQuinn led Council have pushed Richmond into a growing budget mess - the threat of yet another pricey law suit just their latest excuse to spend money the city can't afford - by putting their own personal political agendas ahead of the public interest."
In a statement, Goldman continued:
"While this latest threat of yet another feuding lawsuit may (1) serve Mr. Pantele's mayoral campaign strategy to be seen as the anti-Wilder candidate, and (2) Ms. McQuinn's campaign strategy to become the next Council President, it does not serve the public interest, quite the opposite.
As I have shown repeatedly, if all sides were serious about putting the public interest first, this latest political feud could be resolved without a pricey, political law suit that gets political candidates free campaign publicity at the expense of the public."
All it takes is leadership that puts the people, not the politicians, first.
Moreover, this latest chapter in Richmond's longest running political soap opera only diverts attention from the long-term fiscal issue: namely, the fiscal irresponsibility of both City Hall and City Council, which together have created a bloated budget that has given us the most expensive city hall in the state, the most expensive city council in the state, the most expensive school bureaucracy in the state, in point of fact a total city budget that wastes not only tens of millions but has become a far-too costly and growing burden on more and more residents.
We can not move Richmond forward by being (1) the most expensive city bureaucracy in the state: and being (2) last private sector job creation as the Kaine Administration shockingly found in it's study of the state's cities."
------------------------------------------- 30 -------------------------------------
"Wilder-led City Hall and the Pantele-McQuinn led Council have pushed Richmond into growing budget mess by putting their personal political agendas ahead of the public interest"
"The latest law suit threat shows that Bill fails to realize that given the anti-Wilder platform of his candidacy for Mayor, it is not in the public interest from him to remain as the head of the City Council, it mires this whole mess in mayoral election politics."
(Richmond) - Paul Goldman, candidate for Mayor, said today that the latest law suit threat from City Council shows that "it doesn't serve the public interest, nor help resolve our growing budget mess, for Bill Pantele to stay as head of the Council while he tries to get elected Mayor on an anti-Wilder platform."
"The fact is that both the Wilder-led City Hall and the Pantele-McQuinn led Council have pushed Richmond into a growing budget mess - the threat of yet another pricey law suit just their latest excuse to spend money the city can't afford - by putting their own personal political agendas ahead of the public interest."
In a statement, Goldman continued:
"While this latest threat of yet another feuding lawsuit may (1) serve Mr. Pantele's mayoral campaign strategy to be seen as the anti-Wilder candidate, and (2) Ms. McQuinn's campaign strategy to become the next Council President, it does not serve the public interest, quite the opposite.
As I have shown repeatedly, if all sides were serious about putting the public interest first, this latest political feud could be resolved without a pricey, political law suit that gets political candidates free campaign publicity at the expense of the public."
All it takes is leadership that puts the people, not the politicians, first.
Moreover, this latest chapter in Richmond's longest running political soap opera only diverts attention from the long-term fiscal issue: namely, the fiscal irresponsibility of both City Hall and City Council, which together have created a bloated budget that has given us the most expensive city hall in the state, the most expensive city council in the state, the most expensive school bureaucracy in the state, in point of fact a total city budget that wastes not only tens of millions but has become a far-too costly and growing burden on more and more residents.
We can not move Richmond forward by being (1) the most expensive city bureaucracy in the state: and being (2) last private sector job creation as the Kaine Administration shockingly found in it's study of the state's cities."
------------------------------------------- 30 -------------------------------------
Friday, July 18, 2008
2001 VA column gets recognized nationally even if is considered invisible by state leaders in 2008
With the upcoming 2008 memorial dedication at the State Capitol, the leading 2001 article that has been declared invisible and never read here in Virginia by government leaders [even though a version of it also appeared on the top website covering state government and it was discussed openly] at least gets recognition nationally.
INCOMPLETE HISTORY CAPITOL SQUARE ISN'T TRUE REFLECTION OF VIRGINIA'S PAST
[FINAL Edition]
Daily Press - Newport News, Va.
Author: PAUL GOLDMAN Special to the Daily Press
Date: Aug 19, 2001
Start Page: I.1
Section: OUTLOOK
Text Word Count: 852
Abstract (Document Summary)
Gov. Gilmore and his administration concede our state capitol grounds will be the center of attention for hundreds of thousands of new tourists and the world media. Unfortunately, our governor and his fellow politicians appear to only see this event in terms of the money, estimated in the tens of millions, it will cost to repair and refurbish the Capitol Square grounds and facilities. Admittedly, Jefferson's Capitol, home to the oldest legislature in the new world and the governor's office, needs immediate and expensive maintenance.
All the new construction materials will not hide the obvious: there is not a single statue on the Capitol Square featuring an African-American or a female Virginian. The last new statue erected on the grounds was the likeness of Harry F. Byrd, the foremost segregationist in Virginia political history.
Staff photos (color) by BUDDY NORRIS; No statues on Richmond's Capitol grounds represent African- Americans or women. Those honored include Thomas J. Jackson, left, for his service as a soldier and patriot, Hunter Holmes McGuire, center, a civil and military surgeon, teacher and writer and William Smith, governor of Virginia in the mid-1800s. The newest statue on the state Capitol grounds is of harry Byrd. It faces the monument to George Washinton and the Capitol building. Staff photo (b&w) by BUDDY NORRIS Workers reconstruct walkways around the Capitol this week.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
INCOMPLETE HISTORY CAPITOL SQUARE ISN'T TRUE REFLECTION OF VIRGINIA'S PAST
[FINAL Edition]
Daily Press - Newport News, Va.
Author: PAUL GOLDMAN Special to the Daily Press
Date: Aug 19, 2001
Start Page: I.1
Section: OUTLOOK
Text Word Count: 852
Abstract (Document Summary)
Gov. Gilmore and his administration concede our state capitol grounds will be the center of attention for hundreds of thousands of new tourists and the world media. Unfortunately, our governor and his fellow politicians appear to only see this event in terms of the money, estimated in the tens of millions, it will cost to repair and refurbish the Capitol Square grounds and facilities. Admittedly, Jefferson's Capitol, home to the oldest legislature in the new world and the governor's office, needs immediate and expensive maintenance.
All the new construction materials will not hide the obvious: there is not a single statue on the Capitol Square featuring an African-American or a female Virginian. The last new statue erected on the grounds was the likeness of Harry F. Byrd, the foremost segregationist in Virginia political history.
Staff photos (color) by BUDDY NORRIS; No statues on Richmond's Capitol grounds represent African- Americans or women. Those honored include Thomas J. Jackson, left, for his service as a soldier and patriot, Hunter Holmes McGuire, center, a civil and military surgeon, teacher and writer and William Smith, governor of Virginia in the mid-1800s. The newest statue on the state Capitol grounds is of harry Byrd. It faces the monument to George Washinton and the Capitol building. Staff photo (b&w) by BUDDY NORRIS Workers reconstruct walkways around the Capitol this week.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Style Magazine features Goldman blog quotes
Style Weekly [from the current edition]
July 16, 2008
Quotable Goldman
Snippets from Paul Goldman’s ceaseless e-mail blogs.
by Scott Bass
June 7, 2008
“Who let the dogs out!” … The Big Dogs — Grey, Jones and Pantele — and the big special interest power-brokers behind them are ready to chew up Richmond, get control of all that public money and patronage they covert … unless they are stopped by that little underdog, the one person not controlled by any special interest, “little Goldie” the guy who actually did all the hard work (big dogs are too big to do grunt work). …
“Who let the big dogs out?” indeed.
Woof, woof.
April 27, 2007
Off With Goldman’s Head! You can never find Maximilien François Marie Isidore de Robespierre [when] you need a man these days.
Shakespeare said, “The Law is an Ass.”
Take the Prisoner to the Tower!
If Goldman will not agree to the divorcee between the City and the Elected Mayor law, then cut off his head.
May 29, 2008
Surely, it is a sad day for Richmond when a City Councilman examines this area of government policy and believes it reasonable to conclude that existing city government policy actually results in a net loss of trees.
Feb. 22, 2008
So yes, I would be a Green Mayor.
July 16, 2008
Quotable Goldman
Snippets from Paul Goldman’s ceaseless e-mail blogs.
by Scott Bass
June 7, 2008
“Who let the dogs out!” … The Big Dogs — Grey, Jones and Pantele — and the big special interest power-brokers behind them are ready to chew up Richmond, get control of all that public money and patronage they covert … unless they are stopped by that little underdog, the one person not controlled by any special interest, “little Goldie” the guy who actually did all the hard work (big dogs are too big to do grunt work). …
“Who let the big dogs out?” indeed.
Woof, woof.
April 27, 2007
Off With Goldman’s Head! You can never find Maximilien François Marie Isidore de Robespierre [when] you need a man these days.
Shakespeare said, “The Law is an Ass.”
Take the Prisoner to the Tower!
If Goldman will not agree to the divorcee between the City and the Elected Mayor law, then cut off his head.
May 29, 2008
Surely, it is a sad day for Richmond when a City Councilman examines this area of government policy and believes it reasonable to conclude that existing city government policy actually results in a net loss of trees.
Feb. 22, 2008
So yes, I would be a Green Mayor.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Mayor Wilder should be embarrassed by the misleading "newsletter" sent out by his Administration
Goldman for Mayor - 14 July 2008 - For Immediate Release - Contact, 804-833-6313
Goldman says "at least this candidate for Mayor wants an honest, positive campaign, not more of the same kind of divisive politics that has so badly hurt Richmond starting with Fiasco Friday and continuing today."
"The time has come for the Wilder Administration to stop using public money, this time in their so-called "Visions Newsletter", to build a negative attack-case against a candidate for Mayor, in part by purposely failing to give the people all the relevant facts."
(Richmond) - Paul Goldman, candidate for Mayor, released the following statement today regarding the latest version of Mayor Wilder's so-called "newsletter" produced and paid-for with public money:
" The Wilder Administration's so-called "Visions Newsletter" purposely fails to reveal a key fact in another tax-payer funded negative attack on a candidate for Mayor, although this attack was not by name, nor was it the only substance."
We read today in the so-called "Visions" newsletter the following, written and published using public dollars:
" In 1995, they [the public] voted 2-1 in favor of change to have the Mayor elected at-large and this proposal had the full support of Council, but it was stopped cold in the General Assembly by a former Richmond Mayor who substituted his own voice for the people's voice...
Why did the politicians repeatedly try to prevent change when the people so clearly called for it? Fortunately, the people knew that a change in government was essential to the future of Richmond. "
But this so-called "newsletter" purposely omits a pertinent newsworthy fact: Doug Wilder himself worked to block what the "people so clearly called for." That's right: What the Mayor now concedes was so vital to Richmond, what the Mayor now concedes was the basic fundamental democratic reform needed to get a Rodney Monroe to become Police Chief, he worked to make sure was "stopped cold in the General Assembly." Indeed, he has never been shy about discussing his role behind the scenes in that regard.
"You [the people] were patient in 1995 when narrow interests suppressed your voice to directly elect the Mayor" declares the newsletter at any other point.
Yet it was Doug Wilder who was one of those "narrow interests" that "suppressed" the voice of the people!
Do the writers of this missive have such a low opinion of the press and public that they feel we have no interest in a fair discussion of the facts?
In terms of this attack on Mr. Jones, the so-called "newsletter" attacks him for what they claim he did or didn't do relative to the 2003 referendum.
I see no reason to repeat this attack here.
But I do see a reason to remind the Mayor and others about why some of us took the lead position in doing all the real grunt work to make the Elected Mayor law a reality.
The Elected Mayor change was not only an effort at structural improvement, it was also an effort to move Richmond past the old politics of division. As the leader of the petition drive and the Referendum campaign, I said repeatedly it was not possible to build a new Richmond on the old, discredited, divisive politics.
Sadly, those writing the Wilder Administration's so-called "newsletter" either took no part in making all this historic change a reality, or have no real appreciation for how to move Richmond forward."
Goldman says "at least this candidate for Mayor wants an honest, positive campaign, not more of the same kind of divisive politics that has so badly hurt Richmond starting with Fiasco Friday and continuing today."
"The time has come for the Wilder Administration to stop using public money, this time in their so-called "Visions Newsletter", to build a negative attack-case against a candidate for Mayor, in part by purposely failing to give the people all the relevant facts."
(Richmond) - Paul Goldman, candidate for Mayor, released the following statement today regarding the latest version of Mayor Wilder's so-called "newsletter" produced and paid-for with public money:
" The Wilder Administration's so-called "Visions Newsletter" purposely fails to reveal a key fact in another tax-payer funded negative attack on a candidate for Mayor, although this attack was not by name, nor was it the only substance."
We read today in the so-called "Visions" newsletter the following, written and published using public dollars:
" In 1995, they [the public] voted 2-1 in favor of change to have the Mayor elected at-large and this proposal had the full support of Council, but it was stopped cold in the General Assembly by a former Richmond Mayor who substituted his own voice for the people's voice...
Why did the politicians repeatedly try to prevent change when the people so clearly called for it? Fortunately, the people knew that a change in government was essential to the future of Richmond. "
But this so-called "newsletter" purposely omits a pertinent newsworthy fact: Doug Wilder himself worked to block what the "people so clearly called for." That's right: What the Mayor now concedes was so vital to Richmond, what the Mayor now concedes was the basic fundamental democratic reform needed to get a Rodney Monroe to become Police Chief, he worked to make sure was "stopped cold in the General Assembly." Indeed, he has never been shy about discussing his role behind the scenes in that regard.
"You [the people] were patient in 1995 when narrow interests suppressed your voice to directly elect the Mayor" declares the newsletter at any other point.
Yet it was Doug Wilder who was one of those "narrow interests" that "suppressed" the voice of the people!
Do the writers of this missive have such a low opinion of the press and public that they feel we have no interest in a fair discussion of the facts?
In terms of this attack on Mr. Jones, the so-called "newsletter" attacks him for what they claim he did or didn't do relative to the 2003 referendum.
I see no reason to repeat this attack here.
But I do see a reason to remind the Mayor and others about why some of us took the lead position in doing all the real grunt work to make the Elected Mayor law a reality.
The Elected Mayor change was not only an effort at structural improvement, it was also an effort to move Richmond past the old politics of division. As the leader of the petition drive and the Referendum campaign, I said repeatedly it was not possible to build a new Richmond on the old, discredited, divisive politics.
Sadly, those writing the Wilder Administration's so-called "newsletter" either took no part in making all this historic change a reality, or have no real appreciation for how to move Richmond forward."
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Mayor Wilder's Administration misreads the City Charter
Goldman for Mayor - 9 July 20009 - For Immediate Release
Mayor Wilder's Administration misreads the City Charter
Statement by the Mayor yesterday that the "City Charter states that the Mayor’s budget stands, and he can submit amendments at any time to adjust the budget as necessary" is legally incorrect.
(Richmond) - Paul Goldman, candidate for Mayor and author of the Elected Mayor law said today that "my friend Mayor Wilder is wrong in his interpretation of what he is obligated to do under the Elected Mayor law charter revisions if indeed his budget is, as he claims, the operative one for FY 2009."
"Assuming, for purposes of discussion, that the Wilder Administration wants to be taken seriously in this debate, then surely they can not have it both ways."
"As I pointed out earlier, Charter Section 6.16 imposes a specific and mandatory legal duty on the Mayor if his budget is the operative one and if he is going to keep the Council-passed tax rate." Charter section 6.16 reads:
6.16. Amendments after adoption.
..(c) If at any time during the fiscal year it appears probable to the Mayor that the revenue or fund balances available will be insufficient to finance the expenditures for which appropriations have been authorized, the Mayor shall report to the city council without delay, indicating the estimated amount of the deficit, any remedial action taken by the Mayor and recommendations as to any other steps to be taken. The council shall then take such further action as it deems necessary to prevent or reduce any deficit, and for that purpose it may by ordinance reduce one or more appropriations. [Emphasis added].
In a statement, Goldman continued:
"Since the Mayor has admitted that his budget, the one he says is the operative one, is out of balance and thus is a deficit budget requiring $ 6 million in cuts, then 6.16 applies immediately and imposes a clear legal obligation on the Mayor.
To date, the Mayor has not fulfilled this obligation."
-----------30 ---------------------------------
Mayor Wilder's Administration misreads the City Charter
Statement by the Mayor yesterday that the "City Charter states that the Mayor’s budget stands, and he can submit amendments at any time to adjust the budget as necessary" is legally incorrect.
(Richmond) - Paul Goldman, candidate for Mayor and author of the Elected Mayor law said today that "my friend Mayor Wilder is wrong in his interpretation of what he is obligated to do under the Elected Mayor law charter revisions if indeed his budget is, as he claims, the operative one for FY 2009."
"Assuming, for purposes of discussion, that the Wilder Administration wants to be taken seriously in this debate, then surely they can not have it both ways."
"As I pointed out earlier, Charter Section 6.16 imposes a specific and mandatory legal duty on the Mayor if his budget is the operative one and if he is going to keep the Council-passed tax rate." Charter section 6.16 reads:
6.16. Amendments after adoption.
..(c) If at any time during the fiscal year it appears probable to the Mayor that the revenue or fund balances available will be insufficient to finance the expenditures for which appropriations have been authorized, the Mayor shall report to the city council without delay, indicating the estimated amount of the deficit, any remedial action taken by the Mayor and recommendations as to any other steps to be taken. The council shall then take such further action as it deems necessary to prevent or reduce any deficit, and for that purpose it may by ordinance reduce one or more appropriations. [Emphasis added].
In a statement, Goldman continued:
"Since the Mayor has admitted that his budget, the one he says is the operative one, is out of balance and thus is a deficit budget requiring $ 6 million in cuts, then 6.16 applies immediately and imposes a clear legal obligation on the Mayor.
To date, the Mayor has not fulfilled this obligation."
-----------30 ---------------------------------
Goldman opposes proposed increases in state taxes on auto/consumer spending/housing sectors as bad economic policy given current realities
Goldman for Mayor - 9 July 08- For Immediate Release - Contact, 804-833-6313
Goldman opposes raising General Assembly proposals to raise taxes on auto industry, consumer spending as BAD ECONOMIC POLICY for Richmond and the Metro area right now.
"The job of Mayor is non-partisan and requires taking unpopular stands. So today I have to tell my fellow Democrats in the House of Delegates to the General Assembly that the working families and business owners of Richmond can not afford the tax increases being proposed on automobile sales and on consumer spending in our area."
(Richmond) - Paul Goldman, candidate for Mayor, said today that " Richmonder's live in the real world, and so must those elected to represent them. To be a leader, one has to be willing to do the unpopular thing if that is in the public interest. And while I respect my fellow Democrats in the General Assembly, the Mayor of Richmond is a non-partisan job."
"Yes, we have transportation issues to address both at the state and local levels. But there is a greater reality right now facing the people of Richmond and the Metro area: working families, and business owners, are facing an economic squeeze and moreover, there are several key components of our economic base under special pressure, such as the automobile sector."
" Unfortunately, there is no turnaround in the forseeable future. In case the members of the General Assembly have not been paying attention, car sales are falling, more than they have for many, many years."
"Recently, a leading banking and brokerage firm - that is to say among those such firms still left standing amid the Wall Street carnage - said it was possible General Motors might have to declare bankruptcy! GM stock is at it's lowest point since the Eisenhower Administration.
" As the new car industry goes, so goes the dominoes down the line, to the auto dealers, the auto repair sector and so on, with tens of thousands of jobs, and related business owners at risk."
"Bottom line: Regardless of where you may have studied economics, it is bad economic policy to raise taxes - that is to say increase government-mandated costs - on sectors during these kinds of contractions."
"Accordingly, I oppose such increases and urge Richmond legislators, Democrats and Republicans, to do the same.
"As for the housing tax increase being proposed for Northern Virginia, this is not related to the job of Mayor of Richmond. However, let me say that if the General Assembly tried to impose such an increased tax on our area, I would strongly oppose it, as once again, those who live in the real world know the economic squeeze facing the housing industry right now.
"And until the housing sector turns, the economy can not make a full recovery."
Goldman opposes raising General Assembly proposals to raise taxes on auto industry, consumer spending as BAD ECONOMIC POLICY for Richmond and the Metro area right now.
"The job of Mayor is non-partisan and requires taking unpopular stands. So today I have to tell my fellow Democrats in the House of Delegates to the General Assembly that the working families and business owners of Richmond can not afford the tax increases being proposed on automobile sales and on consumer spending in our area."
(Richmond) - Paul Goldman, candidate for Mayor, said today that " Richmonder's live in the real world, and so must those elected to represent them. To be a leader, one has to be willing to do the unpopular thing if that is in the public interest. And while I respect my fellow Democrats in the General Assembly, the Mayor of Richmond is a non-partisan job."
"Yes, we have transportation issues to address both at the state and local levels. But there is a greater reality right now facing the people of Richmond and the Metro area: working families, and business owners, are facing an economic squeeze and moreover, there are several key components of our economic base under special pressure, such as the automobile sector."
" Unfortunately, there is no turnaround in the forseeable future. In case the members of the General Assembly have not been paying attention, car sales are falling, more than they have for many, many years."
"Recently, a leading banking and brokerage firm - that is to say among those such firms still left standing amid the Wall Street carnage - said it was possible General Motors might have to declare bankruptcy! GM stock is at it's lowest point since the Eisenhower Administration.
" As the new car industry goes, so goes the dominoes down the line, to the auto dealers, the auto repair sector and so on, with tens of thousands of jobs, and related business owners at risk."
"Bottom line: Regardless of where you may have studied economics, it is bad economic policy to raise taxes - that is to say increase government-mandated costs - on sectors during these kinds of contractions."
"Accordingly, I oppose such increases and urge Richmond legislators, Democrats and Republicans, to do the same.
"As for the housing tax increase being proposed for Northern Virginia, this is not related to the job of Mayor of Richmond. However, let me say that if the General Assembly tried to impose such an increased tax on our area, I would strongly oppose it, as once again, those who live in the real world know the economic squeeze facing the housing industry right now.
"And until the housing sector turns, the economy can not make a full recovery."
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
"The Day of No Women Need Apply" for Monument Avenue must end.
Goldman for Mayor - 1 July 2008 - For Immediate Release - Contract, 804-833-6313
Goldman says it is time for Richmond to enter the 21st century.
Proposes first-ever monument on Monument Avenue to honor the great historic achievements of the women of Richmond.
(Richmond) - "With all due respect for my friends at the Richmond Times Dispatch" said candidate Goldman, " the monument to the contributions of women I have proposed for Monument Avenue, and discussed in today's newspaper, was aimed at honoring the historic achievements of the women of Richmond, as clearly stated in the plan I announced on June 10th."
Below is a copy of the press release from that date.
Goldman for Mayor - 10 June 2008 - For Immediate Release
Jefferson Davis Statute Proposal Highlights Historic Void
"What we need on is Monument on Monument Avenue that honors the contributions of the women of Richmond whose achievements have been too long overlooked"
(Richmond) - Paul Goldman, candidate for Mayor, said that "what is needed in Richmond is a monument on Monument Avenue to the contributions and achievements of the city's many historic women."
"Today's story about another proposed Statute of Jefferson Davis, this time at the Tredegar Iron Works, highlights this historic void" Goldman added.
In a statement, he continued:
"The Tredegar Iron Works doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of the next Mayor and so unless asked, I don't think it is my place as a candidate for Mayor to be commenting on the news story unrelated to the election at hand.
But with the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th amendment in the not too distant future, I do think it appropriate for a candidate for Mayor -given today's story - to point out that it highlights the need to fill what is surely a self-evident void, that is to say the lack of a monument on Monument Avenue to the contributions and achievements of Richmond's many historic women.
All the monuments are dedicated to men.
The time is long past that we had one dedicated to the many remarkable women of one of the most historic cities in America.
If given the honor to serve as Mayor, I will make it one of my priorities to set in motion a process for having such a monument constructed for dedication on Monument Avenue in time for the 1920 celebration of the 19th amendment to our Constitution."
----------------------------30 -------------------------
Goldman says it is time for Richmond to enter the 21st century.
Proposes first-ever monument on Monument Avenue to honor the great historic achievements of the women of Richmond.
(Richmond) - "With all due respect for my friends at the Richmond Times Dispatch" said candidate Goldman, " the monument to the contributions of women I have proposed for Monument Avenue, and discussed in today's newspaper, was aimed at honoring the historic achievements of the women of Richmond, as clearly stated in the plan I announced on June 10th."
Below is a copy of the press release from that date.
Goldman for Mayor - 10 June 2008 - For Immediate Release
Jefferson Davis Statute Proposal Highlights Historic Void
"What we need on is Monument on Monument Avenue that honors the contributions of the women of Richmond whose achievements have been too long overlooked"
(Richmond) - Paul Goldman, candidate for Mayor, said that "what is needed in Richmond is a monument on Monument Avenue to the contributions and achievements of the city's many historic women."
"Today's story about another proposed Statute of Jefferson Davis, this time at the Tredegar Iron Works, highlights this historic void" Goldman added.
In a statement, he continued:
"The Tredegar Iron Works doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of the next Mayor and so unless asked, I don't think it is my place as a candidate for Mayor to be commenting on the news story unrelated to the election at hand.
But with the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th amendment in the not too distant future, I do think it appropriate for a candidate for Mayor -given today's story - to point out that it highlights the need to fill what is surely a self-evident void, that is to say the lack of a monument on Monument Avenue to the contributions and achievements of Richmond's many historic women.
All the monuments are dedicated to men.
The time is long past that we had one dedicated to the many remarkable women of one of the most historic cities in America.
If given the honor to serve as Mayor, I will make it one of my priorities to set in motion a process for having such a monument constructed for dedication on Monument Avenue in time for the 1920 celebration of the 19th amendment to our Constitution."
----------------------------30 -------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)