Does Richmond media care that Wilder, Council are violating City Charter on chosing an acting Chief Administrative Officer?

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."