Goldman attacked for daring to believe that rules should be enforced

Dr. Jones uses his Doctorate in religion to give Democrats some legal advice

Dr. Goldman uses his Juris Doctor to try and give the Democratic Party some religion

By Paul Goldman, an occasional column for the blog.

In a filing with the State Democratic Party that seemed right out of the John McCain campaign, Delegate Dwight Jones accuses yours truly of "a series of distortions", indeed being "absurd at best" at one point.

Move over Barack, you and I got to share some room here as the punching bag.

Frankly, I was a little surprised at the harsh language used by my friend Dwight Jones in his written statement to the State Democratic Party submitted voluntarily - he was under no obligation to say it - as part of the review process being used to resolve the my challenge, joined in by Mr. Pantele and Mr. Grey, relative to the action taken by the Richmond City Democratic Committee at their September 25th meeting.

As former State Democratic Chairman Larry Framme pointed out last night at the hearing conducted by conference call [and open to the media and others dailing-in], all that this appeal stated was the self-evident: namely, that the Richmond City Democratic Committee had not followed some very clear and basic rules in making their "endorsement" of Delegate Jones by an unprecedented, unpublicized, and unfair issue-less, power-broker driven process effectively closed to 99.9999% of all the Democrats of Richmond.

To be fair to Dwight, his statement didn't strike me as his usual way of saying things and moreover, it was aimed at the substance of my position, not at me personally.

That being said however, such words do matter, as do deeds, in the larger context of things.

In 2003, in writing the Elected Mayor Law, I was very careful to write a law that took into consideration his views, that of Senator Marsh, and others opposed an elected Mayor so that the people could finally get their right to elect their Mayor.

The plan developed is unique in the United States, but it was necessary if we were to free Richmond from the grasp of a failed and corrupt form of government, as 80% of the people agreed in the pro-change referendum vote, the Elected Mayor law winning in 90% of the precincts in the City.

Yet despite all my efforts, Delegate Jones and Senator Marsh, who was a key leader of the pro-Jones forces on September 25th, objected to the final product, indeed Senator Marsh made some very inflammatory and personal comments about my motivations, all totally untrue which he knew to be the case.

However, I am use to being subject to that kind of stuff from all sides.

Still, I mention it now because all that my petition to the State Democratic Party asked was for the same consideration that Mr. Jones and Mr. Marsh asked to be given on my Elected Mayor Law.

The basis of their objection was that an African-American was put an unfair legal disadvantage under my Elected Mayor law.

Their position had no basis in fact. Senator Obama will get upwards of 80% of the vote in Richmond as did Doug Wilder when he ran for Mayor. Indeed, when my friend Senator Donald McEachin ran for Attorney General, he got less than 40% statewide, but carried Richmond easily.

The truth: By any honest analysis of politics, the Elected Mayor Law gives Dwight Jones as fair and open a chance to be elected as any election law in the country for the position of Mayor.

If not more.

So it strikes me - as they say in England - as rather "bad form" for Mr. Jones and Mr. Marsh to now be taking the position that the Richmond City Democratic Committee can use a procedure that is not fair, that is not open, that violates party rules, that is to say it suffers - in the eyes of any objective analyst - from the of kind of basic flaws that both men said were the reasons they opposed my Elected Mayor Law plan.

If they were so allegedly concern then, why is there no such concern now?

As I said in 2003: the Elected Mayor Law was fair to all concerned and it surely would not prevent Dwight Jones from having a fair and equal chance to win the race for Mayor. He concedes my point now.

What choice does he have given the objective facts?

So why then, when I point out what Mr. Framme and others all know - that the actions taken by the RCDC on September 25th were done precisely to deny the very fair and equal chance demanded by Mr. Jones and Mr. Marsh in 2003 - do I have to read the kinds of things I read in Mr. Jones' statement to the RCDC?

The next Mayor of Richmond, due in good measure to the fiscal mismanagement of the Wilder Administration and the City Council, will have to ask citizens to sacrifice in order to solve a growing fiscal mess. Thus, the person who holds that office needs to be seen as having been elected by a process that was not tainted, nor rigged either directly or indirectly in order to have the moral authority to ask for such sacrifices.

I treated the objections of Mr. Jones and Mr. Marsh in 2003 solely on the merits, as anyone who has read the Justice Department files can attest.

Whether Mr. Jones's written statement to the State Democratic Party meets that test I will leave it for others to decide.