Home Briefs Date Book Hot Topics In the Wind News Your Turn!

Reject Regional Transportation Levies

Yours truly,
Mark A. Geduldig-Yatrofsky

Let All Have a Fair Hearing

When Portsmouth City Council held its first community meeting of 2007, a turn of phrase intended humorously became a not-so-funny axiom. In a good faith effort to make the public proceedings less formal than the semi-monthly meetings at City Hall, council found itself abundantly punished for its good deed. Apparently oblivious to the concept of sharing available airtime with their fellow citizens, three speakers in particular made repeated trips to the open microphones. Other citizens who saw the clock run out before they had the chance to speak left the meeting disappointed.

The inability or unwillingness of some of our neighbors to regulate their own conduct is not the fault of council or staff. In light of previous experience, however, failure of the community meeting organizers to implement strategies for fairly allocating available speaking time would be irresponsible. At the same time, overly regulating the proceedings would defeat the purpose of taking city business to the people.

In the spirit of keeping the community meetings informal and accessible to the public at large, I suggest two modifications to the format of the previous meeting. The first is to open the floor initially to people who have not spoken at a city council meeting in the previous six months. Secondly, I suggest that anyone wishing to speak more than once would have to wait until everyone else desiring the floor has had an equal number of hearings. In other words, before I could address council twice, all others wanting to speak would have had one opportunity of their own.

In an ideal world, "common courtesy" would not be the oxymoron that it has become in ours. Until courtesy becomes more common, however, a reasonable set of rules, and the will to enforce them, must be in place.

Mark A. Geduldig-Yatrofsky

Justify Those School Budget Cuts!

So that I can better evaluate your abilities to make decisions in a fiscally prudent way, I want to offer you a chance to explain more fully your rationale for reducing the funding allocated to the Portsmouth Schools in FY 2008. Because Mr. Moody publicly advocated of restoration of the missing $2 million to the schools, I exempt him from this exercise. The rest of you, however, have expressed in open forums your support for the lesser amount of funding proposed by the city manager. What I ask of you, then, is to review the attached proposal that the School Board approved on March 22, 2007, and indicate which expenditures you consider wasteful or unnecessary and explain why you think so. Express yourselves in complete sentences and be specific about funding cuts and their justifications. Feel free to reduce the budget by as much as you think prudent, but ensure that the reductions total no less than $1.9 million.

This exercise will count as an exam grade. Failure to complete the assignment prior to adoption of the City of Portsmouth FY 2008 budget will result in a grade of "F." Since you should have already worked out these answers in your own minds prior to announcing your positions on the school funding issue, I do not consider the deadline to be unreasonable.

Please let me know if you need clarification.

Mark A. Geduldig-Yatrofsky
Proposed FY 2008 School Budget (1.25 MB)

Same-Sex Marriage Ban a Political Distraction

Wayne Potrafka

(Mr. Potrafka is responding to a Letter to the Editor titled "Endangering Children," which appeared in The Virginian-Pilot for Thursday, November 2, 2006, page B9.)

Emergency Management Act - A Disaster for Democratic Process

As we move into the "high season" for hurricanes, preparing for natural and human-designed disasters appears to be a major emphasis for our city management team. Three of the eight items in the "City Manager's Report" section of the August 22 City Council Agenda have some connection to emergency preparations.

Of those three, the one that strikes me as problematic is 06-385, described in the Executive Brief and Documentation as "an Ordinance to amend Article XXI of Chapter 2 of the Code of the City of Portsmouth (1988), pertaining to the Emergency Services Agency." The intent of the changes seems innocuous enough: "correct[ing] certain outdated material and provid[ing] a clearer and more comprehensive set of operating procedures by which the City can protect its citizens during an emergency." An examination of the ordinance itself, however, reveals that the writer of the high level overview had a gift for understatement. In my estimation, the revised ordinance grants sweeping, if not dictatorial, powers to the city manager, or her/his designee, in the event of a disaster. (See the "Emergency Management Agency Ordinance" in the "Documents" section of PortsmouthCityWatch for the Executive Brief and ordinance text.)

As chief executive officer (CEO) of the municipality, the city manager already has considerable power. Appointed by and accountable to our city council, s/he is responsible for the administration of our local government. All department heads, including the fire and police chiefs, and their subordinates serve at her/his pleasure. The manager oversees the day-to-day operations of our municipality, except for those functions that fall under our constitutional officers (the city treasurer, commissioner of the revenue, sheriff, and clerk of the circuit court), the school board, the courts, and the other council appointees (city clerk, city assessor, and city attorney).

One of the city manager's existing responsibilities, then, is directing emergency services. As proposed in the city code revisions, the new title is Director of the Emergency Management Agency, a change intended to align the nomenclature with that of the corresponding state and federal agencies. This change and similar housekeeping items are not the cause for my concern.

The "heartburn" portions of the revised ordinance begin in subsection c of Section 2-657, which grants the city manager, as Director of the Emergency Management Agency, authorization to exercise "all powers reasonably and necessarily implied from any express grant of authority" under the Commonwealth Emergency Services and Disaster Law of 2000 "and any and all other applicable laws." This is effectively an "elastic clause" allowing the director to act during times of declared emergency beyond the letter of the law with little statutory constraint.

Even so, a brand new section of the ordinance, 2-659, titled "Emergency Powers," is so sweeping as to make the "elastic clause" seem superfluous. In the name of protecting the public, the director or her/his designee may:

• establish shelters "as he determines necessary," even if that means taking private property for the purpose (subsection b paragraph 4)
• "commandeer and appropriate automobiles, boats, other vehicles, or other personal property if needed to protect the public" (subsection b paragraph 5)
• "direct any City employees to work at such hours and to perform such duties as are reasonably necessary to help protect and serve the public" (subsection b paragraph 6)
• "order the evacuation of areas of the City . . . [which] may be enforced by any sworn officer" and for which non-compliance may incur legal penalty (subsection b paragraph 9)

To differentiate Portsmouth from the Stalinist Soviet Union, the ordinance does stipulate that the owners of private property, vehicles, or personal property taken for the good of the public are to receive "just compensation upon conclusion of the emergency." Whether such provisions would withstand judicial review under the Fifth Amendment prohibition against taking people's property "without due process of law," remains an open question. What I suspect, though, is the first time a director exercises that authority, the taxpayers of Portsmouth will be underwriting yet another costly legal battle.

I also question the rationale for the provision compelling city workers to follow the orders of the director of emergency management. As city manager, s/he is already their boss. Additionally, my experience with our city employees is that they come through when emergencies arise, working extended hours and doing their best to serve the public. This section, therefore, is an insult and a morale killer.

Finally, the city has no business making criminals of citizens who refuse to accept the advice to evacuate. When competent authority determines that evacuation is necessary and informs citizens of that decision, however, those who stay must accept that they have waived their right to city support until our public employees can again provide it without undue risk. Such choices come with logical consequences; city government does not need to add artificial ones.

The same city management team that urged council to pull the plug on televising non-agenda speakers at council meetings has devised another "solution" that is disrespectful of the democratic traditions of our country and our community. I suggest that instead of a Stalinist "Commissar of Emergency Management" with authority to appropriate private property, virtually enslave city workers, and prosecute citizens for making their own judgments about how best to protect their lives and property, we look for solutions that are in keeping with our fundamental principles. Perhaps, instead of a "command and control" approach, we should organize neighborhoods along the lines of the Civil Defense Corps in World War II or our contemporary neighborhood watch program.

Abandoning our democratic values and traditions when natural or artificial disasters strike only compounds the disaster. Let's tell council, then, to send the Emergency Management Act Ordinance back for a major overhaul.

Mark Geduldig-Yatrofsky

The New Court Complex: Watch the Tax Bills Rise

Taxpayers reeling from their 2006 real estate assessments can expect no relief in the near term if City Council approves the borrowing of nearly $7,000,000 tomorrow to begin the construction of a new "palace of justice" in downtown Portsmouth. The bond issue, about which the public may comment under agenda item 06-227, covers the architectural fees and land acquisition for the project. Official estimates of the construction costs are $58,000,000 more. Based on previous experience with actual, as opposed to projected, price tags of capital investments in this city, I expect the final bill to be significantly higher.

Assuming that the city can borrow money for the project at five per cent for thirty years, the debt service for the land acquisition and architectural services will draw about $450,000 per year, or just under one cent of the real estate tax rate, out of the general fund beginning this July. Scheduled to start in Fiscal Year 2009 (July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009), the construction itself, using the same five per cent estimated interest rate and thirty-year payback period, will require about $3,740,000 of general fund revenue, or about seven cents of the real estate tax rate. If overall city income does not grow sufficiently to cover that cost along with the inflation-driven growth in municipal expenses for staffing, retiree benefits, fuel, utilities, and so forth, Portsmouth taxpayers in two years can expect not only higher assessments but a higher tax rate.

What has been lacking in the rush to build a shiny, new court complex is the compelling cost-benefit argument for abandoning the thirty-six-year-old buildings presently housing our courts. Certainly, keeping the judicial function where it is will cost something. The General Assembly has allotted Portsmouth a new circuit court judge, which necessitates providing new offices and a new courtroom. Engineering studies of the current building identified an asbestos issue that requires remediation before any space reconfigurations can proceed. The price tag for the asbestos abatement, temporary relocation of circuit court functions, and leasing of temporary quarters could well cost $3-4 million. Facilities expansion and security improvements previously requested by the judges could run another $24,000,000. Certainly, this is no small amount of money, but taken together, it is less than half the projected cost of a new complex. It is also a significant short term saving to the taxpayers. Additionally, if the courthouse has to undergo improvements to house the judiciary until a replacement structure is ready, turning around in four or five years to tear it down seems completely irrational. Despite what an outside observer might conclude from looking at examples like the nTelos Pavilion and the Virginia Sports Hall of Fame, the city can not afford to waste its money.

Perhaps my viewpoint is skewed. After all, the original part of my house is over one hundred twenty years old. According to the tax assessor, my dwelling, better than three times the age of the court complex, is worth $100,000 more this year than it was a year ago. Many of my neighbors, living in structures more or less the same vintage as mine, have received similar news. That leads to me think that a courthouse complex built fewer than four decades ago might have some life left in it. A city that is as chronically cash-strapped as ours ought to be looking for ways to extend that life and save its citizens money rather than charging off to spend more of our tax dollars unnecessarily.

So my mind has not changed since I stated my opposition to this proposal in the budget public hearings on April 18. Based on the April 25 budget adoption vote, however, council looks poised to approve the bond issue and get the "palace of justice" underway. Undeterred by the advice of our highly regarded consultant, Ray Gindroz, that the city leave the civic center for the latter part of its waterfront redevelopment effort or by the additional burden on the current property owners of moving forward now, a majority of council members have clearly signaled their intentions. Of course, if a hundred or so displeased citizens showed up for the public hearing tomorrow night to insist that the judges make do with refurbished quarters, it would probably change a few minds and the outcome of the vote. Sadly, I do not expect that kind of reaction. Public sentiment tends to lag the decisions at City Hall and only coalesce after the consequences of those decisions manifest themselves, usually in the form of high tax bills. By then, the only recourse the citizens have is firing city council members.

Mark Geduldig-Yatrofsky

Beware Potential Stealth Tax Increase

It is the final item on the work session agenda for this coming Monday, but its position masks its importance. A lot of hopes are riding on the report of the consultant who has been reviewing city real estate assessments. When pressed by council members to provide a guesstimate of what the finding might be, City Manager Jim Oliver speculated that valuations citywide might rise as much as twenty to forty per cent. The pupils in most council members' eyes turned into dollar signs at the thought of it.

Of course, if the consultant finds that the real estate assessor has been undervaluing residences and commercial property in our city, and council accepts the recommended adjustment, our elected municipal representatives will have to walk a tightrope. Citizens are not likely to hand over that much more in taxes without a protest. With another council election looming in spring of 2006, that kind of protest could be career limiting for incumbents hoping to remain in office. So, the Honorables will need to find a tax rate adjustment that gives the appearance of an appreciable rollback from the current $1.44 per hundred without actually giving up too much of the windfall that a dramatic valuation increase could provide.

The city relies on tax base growth to pay for increases in employee wages and benefits, utilities, and other goods and services it has to purchase. Additionally, that revenue growth has to pay for capital costs like a courthouse renovation or replacement, expansion of the Children's Museum, and a new Churchland Library, to name a few. Despite the tax dollars poured into downtown investments like the Renaissance Hotel and the nTelos Pavilion, the bulk of revenue appreciation has been from pre-existing real estate. Even the Maersk facility and the New Porte development, which will both improve the tax base significantly, are not mature enough yet to make a significant contribution to current income.

If council can reduce the rate on real property by a full nickel or dime at the same time the city takes in millions more from a property valuation bonanza, they can thump their chests about cutting taxes, which voters generally appreciate. The problem is, the net tax bill could still be higher than that of the previous year and by more than the rate of inflation.

Clearly, this is an instance in which citizens need to be careful consumers. Had no external review of assessments occurred this year, we could have expected some rise in the amount of taxes we will pay next year because real property has been appreciating in value. What we should not tolerate, however, is tax gouging masked by a rate cut. To judge the fairness of the updated tax levy, we will need to project the rate of change between our present tax bill and the one for next year. Doing that computation requires that we know both the value of our property, according to the city, and the proposed tax rate. So, when those new assessments arrive in the mail, let's make sure our calculators have fresh batteries.

Mark Geduldig-Yatrofsky

New Council Rules Necessitate New Welcome Speech: My Gift to the Mayor

On Tuesday, August 9, Portsmouth City Council will consider a revised set of rules governing their proceedings. Among the features I find most egregious are the new limitations on citizen participation. The current rules allow each speaker up to five minutes per agenda item addressed; the new ones, five minutes total time per meeting, regardless of the number of items involved. Recognizing that such an outrageous circumscription of citizen rights would not have emerged from the back room into public view without assurances of at least majority council support, I will assume it a "done deal," accept it gracefully, and endeavor to assist with the transition. I hereby off the mayor a revision of his well-worn "Welcome to Portsmouth City Council" speech that embodies the spirit of the new procedures. I am omitting all the malapropisms and ungrammatical uses that occur in his stock speeches, as they would cause a number of excellent English teachers I had in the course my public education to spin in their graves. Mayor Holley, if he adapts this humble submission to his own use, certainly can mangle it as he sees fit. I expect no better treatment than that received by those who write his speeches for pay.

The Mayor: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to this meeting of the Portsmouth City Council in our historic riverfront community. We enjoy having the public here as a backdrop for our deliberations. Playing to a room that has people in it, other than those on your right - the city staff - whom we underpay to be here, makes us look important. We appreciate your helping us dress the stage for help impress those who will subsequently watch this at home.

I used to refer to this as "your meeting," but some individuals thought I meant that literally. What the phrase acknowledges is that you have paid for this building, our salaries, health benefits, the meals we ate this evening before this meeting began, our travel to a variety of exotic places in this country and others, and everything entailed in operating the government of this municipality. In consequence, you have made this meeting possible, and we thank you for that. Any concerns you have, however, about how we manage this city are not welcome at this time. Please exercise your right to vote for city council candidates every two years, but trust us to think for you in the meantime.

As the late Ed Sullivan used to say, "Tonight we have a really big show." Right up front we have the official presentations designed to put everyone in a "feel good" frame of mind. We will be recognizing a few citizens who have contributed to the city in ways that don't "rock the boat" in any political sense. This type of item has several benefits: it makes the chamber look full when the camera pans the audience at the start of the proceedings; it allows your mayor and council members to portray ourselves as warm, caring, very personable human beings; and it ingratiates us with citizens who might not otherwise set foot in this room. Presentations offer plentiful photo opportunities and, under the new rules, your only chances this evening to applaud, so make the most of them.

We then get into the public hearings. This part of the agenda we cannot avoid because the Commonwealth of Virginia, which created our municipality and, therefore, thinks it owns us, requires that we let you speak. Inconvenient as we may find this mandate, it does allow us to maintain the illusion that we care about democratic process. Consequently, it is has some utility.

In regard to the rest of the agenda, we want to get through it as quickly as possible. The city manager's report, in particular, is full of business that affects your family finances in significant ways. Under this heading, for example, we acted to give the Virginia Sports Hall of Fame and Museum half a million of your tax dollars a year. Similarly, all the expenditures on nTelos, approaching $20 million now, resulted from votes during this part of the agenda. You need to understand that we already know how we are going to vote, because the special interests who put boatloads of money into our campaign coffers make their wishes known privately long before these items come before us publicly. Letting citizens offer thoughtful, logical arguments on these topics, therefore, is a waste of everyone's time. A few people, however, can't seem to grasp that concept. Consequently, our new rules limit them to five minutes of "talk therapy" per council meeting. We hope this compromise will alleviate some of their need to feel important but will result in more time for all of us to spend with our respective families. Besides, just as in the past, a citizen's right to speak imposes no obligation on council members to listen.

We ask everyone in the chamber to remember that the purpose of this meeting is to fulfill the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of the citizens, as we have formulated them. After all, you voted for us to make the difficult choices for you. Although I often say that this is not the time to leave Portsmouth, I may have been wrong in certain cases. Those of our citizens who want to engage in a participatory form of democracy I now invite to relocate to some small community in Vermont. There people decide in town meetings how to run their localities. Your council members and you might all be happier for your making that change.

To those of you not leaving to put up "For Sale" signs on your property, welcome again. Now, on with the show!

Mark Geduldig-Yatrofsky

Keep School Board an Elected Body but Fire Bad Actors

In a thoughtful "Your Turn!" article, parents and education issues activists Douglas and Mandy Eames propose reverting to an appointed board for governing the Portsmouth School System. Citing divisiveness, lack of accountability, and petty bickering among the current members as justifications for their proposal, they argue that a City Council selected board is the remedy for these ills. Although their recommended solution may eliminate some of the fractiousness, I believe it will create other problems.

In the first place, despite the dysfunctional interactions among current board members, all do not bear equal blame for the lack of collegiality and failure to work together productively. My observation of the body over time leads me to conclude that a good housecleaning in the May 2006 elections could alleviate most of the personality clashes that undermine the effectiveness of the elected board. Replacing current Board Chair Byron "Pete" Kloeppel and Members Jean Shackelford and Mark Whittaker with reasonable and thoughtful people like Mr. Mark DiVenuti and Ms. Patricia Burns would give the body a solid majority of responsible adults capable of dealing with issues on their merits rather than on the basis of racial politics. (Since I am naming names, let me disclose that I count former Chair James Bridgeford and Members Elizabeth Daniels, Sheri Bailey, and Elizabeth "Betty" Hudgins in the "responsible adult" category.) Assuming the rules governing school board recall are similar to those for city council, I would follow up the spring cleaning in the regular election with a recall of Member Keith Nance, who, when present, routinely demonstrates his inability to play well with others. Then, I believe, the board could roll up its sleeves and get some good work accomplished.

Secondly, I cannot understand how an appointed school board will be more accountable to the citizenry than one we elect directly. In the current environment, the members of that body serve at our pleasure. We, the citizens of Portsmouth, can choose to retain or retire roughly half the board members every two years. If we are doing our jobs as voters, we will be observing the performance of those we have elected and re-electing only those whose service is meritorious. That is the ultimate in accountability.

Lastly, the proposal implies that the same citizens who are capable of making good choices for city council lose their powers of discernment when they turn to the school board section of the ballot. That implication strains credulity. Either we are making poor choices for both offices, in which case the poorly chosen council members are unlikely to improve the board, or reasonable choices among the candidates seeking each set of offices, in which case our council members again are unlikely to improve on the outcome.

Furthermore, appointive systems have their own weaknesses. In the first place, the exercise of public will is through intermediaries. I know this assertion will surprise a few readers, but I have observed that some city council members have their own agendas, which are not necessarily aligned with those of the citizenry. The unanimous vote for a significant annual subsidy to the Virginia Sports Hall of Fame and Museum comes readily to mind. In any case, a council selected school board is likely to consist of appointees who are supporters or friends of the council majority. Maintaining good relations with council members, therefore, can become the paramount concern of those who wish for long tenure in their positions. Consequently, the will to press council for more school funding in a difficult budget year (most budget years in Portsmouth tend to be difficult) is not likely to evidence itself except among those tired of serving on the board. Politicians tend to dislike too much independence of thought and action by their appointees.

Similarly, an appointed board member who irritates a small constituency that has the ear of council becomes a candidate for early retirement. Even though that member may have run afoul of the politically influential by acting in the best interests of the community at large, the public is not likely to know. Most of us lack the time to monitor appointed boards and commissions. (For all but the politically obsessed among us, keeping track of our elected officials is difficult enough.) Appointing rather than electing school boards, then, does not assure that the "best and the brightest" will get or keep the available positions.

Because I view the elective school board selection approach as preferable to the appointive, my conclusion may come as a surprise: I would like to see this referendum occur. First, I believe in direct democracy, of which referenda are part. Second, I would like the community to engage in a dialogue about this important issue, which is something that will occur if we have the opportunity to vote on it. Unquestionably, I want the referendum issue defeated but prefer it to be by a small majority to put the board on notice about the extent of public displeasure. Finally, I want to see the housecleaning that I described early in this opinion piece. I think that sequence of events will produce the results that both the referendum proponents and I are seeking: effective school governance by a responsible group of adults.

Mark Geduldig-Yatrofsky

(Note: The Virginian-Pilot February 6, 1995, edition has a pertinent discussion of some of these issues. It also references the Portsmouth City Charter - Section 10.09 - recall provisions in conjunction with removal of a school board member.)

Mayor and Council Need to Be Frank about Pay

One of the not-so-pretty facets of American politics is the public reaction to legislators' voting themselves raises. Although the only other group of workers able to set it own pay rate is the self-employed, members of Congress, state legislators, and city councils are in what many would consider an enviable position: they can get a raise anytime they and their colleagues can muster majority sentiment for approving one.

The problem is, the media generally has a field day with each such occurrence, and the public tends to feel resentment over the idea. During the next election, challengers will exploit the issue, sometimes decisively. The irony, of course, is that the very same challenger riding public discontent to victory will receive the new higher pay rate on taking office. I am not aware of any who have given back the difference between the prior compensation level and one that bred the discontentment.

I state for the record that I believe politicians deserve fair compensation. Even though I am more often critical than laudatory of the performance of many of my elected officials, I acknowledge that they are performing a public service that deserves remuneration. City council members, specifically, devote a lot of time to public business that they could otherwise spend with their families or in less demanding pursuits. For every hour they are on the dais in the Council Chamber, they easily spend five in preparation. They also make an endless round of appearances before community groups and at public events. Admittedly, they all volunteered for their jobs, but that is not justification to denigrate their efforts and devotion to duty.

With those assertions made, I have to take exception to the manner in which the mayor and members of city council are tip-toeing into voting themselves a raise, not this budget year but next. If you examine the "City Council" tab of the FY 2006 Budget Book, you won't find any reference to an increase from $21,000 to $25,000 per year for the mayor and from $18,900 to $23,000 per year for members of council, effective July 1, 2006. Instead, you would have to examine the budget ordinances in the agenda package for the May 3 Special Meeting of City Council and read down to page 28. How many citizens in this city are likely to find it that way?

I want to be clear: I do not begrudge the mayor and members of council pay increases. If I were in charge of the compensation system, they would receive the same annual percentage increase as regular city employees do. What I consider objectionable, though, is having the information hidden away where few citizens will find it. That sort of approach only engenders distrust of public officials. In the present climate, if the city could convince its creditors to accept distrust as the medium of payment, tax increases would never again be necessary. I believe that over the long run the image of our city officials will benefit from frankness and openness on this sensitive subject.

Mark A. Geduldig-Yatrofsky

(The following is the text of remarks Ms. Terry Danaher addressed to the members of Portsmouth City Council when they considered the nTelos contract amendment and release at the special meeting, Wednesday, March 30, 2005.)

Good evening.

Thank you,
Terry Danaher

Put the Public into nTelos Public/Private Partnership

For at least the last three months, every time I have seen a Virginian-Pilot headline that contains the name "nTelos," I have wondered how much more the latest "fix" to the problem was going to cost us taxpayers. This morning I read that at the closed meeting Monday (see the "Official" page for more details) our council  members will discuss cutting a deal with Harbor Center Joint Ventures (HCJV) to avoid litigation and ensure that 2005 has a concert season. Of course, at this late date, HCJV will have to hustle to sign enough acts to fill the calendar of the riverside pavilion.

nTelos Pavilion post-Isabel, September 2003

If the figures contained in today's article, "Agreement may be near in battle over nTelos venue," are correct, Portsmouth citizens will be on the hook for close to $2 million. This is over and above yearly principal and interest payments of $1.6 million on the bonded debt, debt service on the note that provided funds to replace the top that Isabel shredded, and reallocated funds from this year's budget that paid for runoff and drainage improvements at the facility. City revenue from the concerts - amusement, sales, meal, and utility taxes and parking fees, if charged - will partially offset the costs. Since recordkeeping for prior years' operations was less than complete, however, estimates of potential income to the city are merely guesses.

After reading the V-P article, I wondered what sort of advice to offer my elected representatives. Should we attempt to cut our losses, lick our financial wounds, and attempt to put our lives back together? In considering the choices, I realized I did not have enough information to see the big picture. In that light, maybe I should hold my peace and trust in council to make the best decision.

No one who knows me would bet on the latter option. Besides, many citizens who went down the path of blind trust in city leadership have experienced bitter disappointment in regard to the nTelos experience. If we want better outcomes for the future, we need to inform ourselves about, and involve ourselves with, this and every other significant issue.

If the members of council believe in their Vision Statement, now is the time for them to match deeds to words. "Citizens work together with local government to fully utilize human and community assets, thus producing a[n] . . . environment that includes excellent . . . public facilities. . . ." To put the principle into practice, council will have to move the nTelos discussion out of the back room into a public forum. Whatever the Honorables decide tomorrow night, they need to bring before the public as a proposal over which we can dialogue. If we are the ones who will be picking up the tab, we need to have our say before the signatures go onto the "dotted line." Elected officials do not have a monopoly on good ideas, and nTelos has already cost the citizenry too much for us to be left out of the decision of where we go from here.

On the other hand, if council acts tomorrow night without affording citizens the opportunity to examine the proposal and offer informed commentary on the details, the council confirms Temple West's characterization (Portfolio Weekly, 15 March 2005, News and Views, "Portsmouth, Where, oh Where, Art Thou?" p. 10), of their Vision Statement as "generically vapid." It also leaves us no recourse, if we find the deal unpalatable, but to fire those who bind us to it and instruct their successors to recycle those meaningless vision proclamations.

Mark Geduldig-Yatrofsky
nTelos Bond Payment Schedule (143 KB)

What's the Rush?

The proverb about marrying in haste and repenting at leisure should inform our city management team's approach to contracting, as well. Not many months ago, veteran City Council Members Moody and Whitehurst were lamenting the conditions under which they had to approve the terms of the nTelos management contract. According to their version of events, then-City Manager Daniel Stuck gave them the options of approving the contract nominally in effect today or having an empty performance venue for its opening season. Their dissatisfaction over being pressed for a decision with little time to evaluate the risks should be a caution to this council in evaluating a potential deal with American Ref-Fuel. With its "yea" or "nay" due by March 11, council should say "No, thank you" and walk away.

City leadership often behaves schizophrenically. When campaigning for re-election, council members will trumpet how wonderfully Portsmouth is doing in the economic development arena. They will hold up the Renaissance Hotel, Maersk, Victory Crossing, and New Port as indications of health and vitality. Yet, in backroom discussions, it often looks like the crew of the Titanic desperately attempting to get more lifeboats into the water. In another public work session last summer, for example, Mayor Holley admitted that the city had not charged nTelos patrons for parking because they didn't think anybody would come.

In its editorial Saturday, March 5 ("Turning Trash to Cash," "Hampton Roads," page B8), urging Portsmouth not to pass up the opportunity to site a solid waste transfer facility on our waterfront, the Virginian-Pilot struck that same note of desperation. "Hurry up, Portsmouth, do whatever you can to fill up unused land. You don't have many choices," was the implicit message. Although they may be right about the frequency of offers, they are wrong in regard to the process for making such decisions. We need to respect ourselves enough to wait for a suitable opportunity.

Unlike some others who think that sealed containers from New York City might hold more than household solid waste (they never found Jimmy Hoffa's remains, did they), I am willing to accept that the content will be just ordinary trash. I am also willing to accept the assertions that the haulers can move the containers by barge and truck in an environmentally responsible way. What gives me pause, however, is the volume of trash that will have to pass over our streets. Even at the low-end estimate of 125 containers (at one truck per container) per day, about every four minutes one tractor-trailer would have to leave the transfer facility to deliver all the containers to the SPSA RDF Plant in the span of an eight-hour day. Whichever route carried that kind of load would become an obstacle course for other traffic. At the stated maximum of 300 loads per eight-hour day, the departure interval would be one tractor-trailer every 1.6 minutes.

Another issue is the "host fee" Portsmouth would receive, estimated at $1 million annually. The American Ref-Fuel contract to supply SPSA is supposed to run for 20 years. Does that mean the host fee Portsmouth will receive is locked in for the same duration? Assuming an average inflation rate of only three per cent per year, the value of that payment in constant dollars will decline substantially. At the same time, the cost of road maintenance, including materials and labor, will rise. Without some sort of escalator clause, the host fee may be inadequate to fund street maintenance along the designated routes, let alone the community improvements cited as a rationale for accepting this proposal.

Given sufficient time to evaluate these and other significant factors, I would not be urging the council to dismiss this project. It needs time for careful study and community input. Meeting the March 11 deadline, however, merely ensures another rush to judgment with two decades for leisurely repentance. Additionally, this item does not appear on the published city council agenda for the meeting this Tuesday. Instead, it is on the task list of the public work session that precedes the council meeting. Unlike a city council meeting, public work sessions afford citizens no opportunity to express their views, only to witness how council operates.

If you care about the future of our city, I urge you to communicate with the members of city council before the Tuesday, March 8, work session. Encourage them to refuse this desperation measure. Let's demonstrate our civic self-esteem by not selling ourselves short.

Mark Geduldig-Yatrofsky

Picking Pockets in Portsmouth

Terry Danaher

Another puzzle is why the lights inside the lens housing operate only during the day. A few months ago, the lens had nighttime illumination. Does the lighted lens pose a navigational hazard, or are the lights activated by a timer that has lost its way? We hope to be able to enlighten our readers on this issue very soon.

Mark Geduldig-Yatrofsky

The First Order Fresnel Lens on the Portsmouth Seawall: who turned out the lights?

Mark Geduldig-Yatrofsky

When Portsmouth Superintendent of Schools David Stuckwisch appeared at the City Council retreat last November to ask for significantly more school funding, I thought I felt the winds of change blowing. For years we have trailed the region in key aspects of school performance: standardized test scores, student enrollment, and teacher retention, to name a few. Our city has also devoted a smaller percentage of its budget to school funding than have most localities in the state.  Yet, during every city council election season, the incumbents, and most challengers, talk about how much our schools matter to them.

Unfortunately, talk is cheaper than action.  Although our City Manager, Mr. C. W. “Luke” McCoy, appeared to have taken seriously Dr. Stuckwisch’s request for more local funding, City Council experienced collective vertigo over the level to which tax levies would have had to rise to make that happen. Over the last few months Mr. McCoy and the finance department have repeatedly reworked the mix of tax and fee increases and program cuts to find a formula that would draw the least public displeasure. In the most recently presented version of the budget, the schools once again received the leftovers

I have had a number of interactions with Dr. Stuckwisch and even more opportunities to observe his deportment in the public arena. Although low-key and soft-spoken, he has impressed me with having command of the facts. Unlike some city council members, he doesn’t throw meaningless statistics around to distract the public from the issues. He also knows what the significant numbers are without having them spoon fed to him. For those reasons, I take him seriously when he speaks of a teacher retention crisis in our city education system. My own substitute teaching experience in Portsmouth corroborates his observations.

In his presentation to council at the November retreat, Dr. Stuckwisch spoke of the precariousness of teacher staffing in Portsmouth. He described the exodus of capable professionals to neighboring systems that pay salaries thousands of dollars higher than ours. As the demand increases for the “highly qualified teachers” mandated under the most recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (the “No Child Left Behind” provisions), the “brain drain” from Portsmouth worsens. This leads to more and more cases of experienced teachers juggling their instructional responsibilities with the need to help long- and short-term substitutes who are filling the gaps. If the financial disincentives were not sufficient to drive out all the good teachers, the stress that the cumulative losses engender is eroding the morale of even the most dedicated, producing further attrition. An implosion seems inevitable. We need to act decisively and promptly to prevent it.

As a veteran council watcher, I have heard all the timeworn excuses for council inaction:  fifty-six per cent of our land is non-taxable; JLARC says the state owes our schools $29 million; we have wonderful economic developments that will make our financial picture better soon; and all the rest of them. Not that any of the previous statements is untrue; they are, however, irrelevant.  In the final analysis, these are the Portsmouth City Schools, and the people of Portsmouth are responsible for seeing that they flourish rather than decay.  Shifting the blame and offering alibis is not going to solve the problem. Our children who are in school now cannot wait for revenue from future development to flow into the city coffers. The clock is ticking for them; they need a first-class education today.

I feel certain that many other citizens of this town share my displeasure with the “back of the bus” treatment council has given school funding requests. The ouster of two incumbent council members in the recent election and their replacement with people endorsed by the Portsmouth Education Association Political Action Committee and The Virginian-Pilot on the strength of their pro-schools agendas hints that the electorate considers good schools important and bad schools unacceptable. Still, despite what I consider a strong show of voter discontent, a few members of council whose seats weren’t at risk this time don’t seem to have heard the message.

Bob Dylan was onto something when he questioned the number of times someone could “turn his head / And pretend that he just doesn’t see.” The people who now seem to be controlling the budget process appear to be in denial about their own vulnerability.  Perhaps they think they can short-change the schools for two more years and then claim, as their defeated colleagues did, that they always provided whatever the school system requested. I have my doubts that they will be able to sell that story again.

We the people of Portsmouth have just a little time remaining to let the Honorable Charles B. Whitehurst, Sr., William E. Moody, Jr., and Marlene W. Randall know that we support Dr. Stuckwisch in his effort to pull our schools out of the ditch and put them back on the road to success. The final vote for the FY 2004-2005 budget will be Tuesday, June 15, sometime after 5 P.M. Between now and then, we need to inundate the Mayor and all six members of council with letters, email messages, and telephone calls making one thing perfectly clear – the schools come first. Should the Honorables decide not to do our will, we should heed the advice of former President Reagan: those who will not see the light must assuredly be made to feel the heat.  We won’t have to wait two more years to turn up that heat, either – the Portsmouth City Charter provides for citizen recall.

Mark Geduldig-Yatrofsky

Mark Geduldig-Yatrofsky

"From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent."

Winston Churchill, 1946

When the Berlin Wall came down in 1990, I thought that someone would have taken a cutting torch to that old "iron curtain" and recycled it. Of course, it is a metaphor rather than a real object, but the City of Portsmouth may have retrieved it for our use. (Thank goodness the "heavy metal" room divider is only a metaphor. Otherwise, City Council might vote to build a new museum around it, at taxpayer expense, to attract tourists.) I offer the following evidence that the "iron curtain" is hanging in our town:

People's Exhibit 1: City Manager McCoy declined the invitation of the Van Lefcoe Alumni and the Portsmouth Division of the Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce to videotape and later televise their City Council Candidate Forum on April 21. When I questioned Mr. McCoy about that decision, he told me that he had not allowed City Channel 48 to air forums previously and would not do so now. My argument that WGOV-TV exists to serve the interests of the people of Portsmouth rather than being a propaganda vehicle for the City Hall perspective did not move him.

Consequently, I shifted to the public arena. In an email message I invited all city council candidates to express their views on this matter and suggested that the April 27 meeting of council or a letter to the editor would be a good means of addressing the issue. I then prepared my own speech for the non-agenda portion of the council meeting.

My address to council not only covered the refusal to broadcast the candidate forum but also supported the decision of the Virginian-Pilot to endorse candidates other than Messrs. Benn and Pitts. After I concluded my remarks, a few council members offered comments. Mr. Benn offered a defense of his record of support for public education, and Mr. Pitts started off in a similar vein. Before he could finish, Council Member Moody insisted that the City Council meeting was no place for politicking. (Of course, this writer and others might construe the kind of grandstanding from the dais in which Mr. Moody and his colleagues regularly engage as "politicking," too, but that is an opinion piece for another day.)

People's Exhibit 2: I glanced at the Portsmouth Channel on Saturday night, May 1, a little after the 7-9 PM time slot in which council proceeding are supposed to air.  Seeing that I had missed the broadcast window, I checked on Sunday around 1:30 PM and found only the automatic announcements. Giving it one more try, I set my VCR to record the 7-9 PM programming. Again, no city council meeting came over the cable waves. (You need not take my word for the schedule. Check the Portsmouth Currents or the Portsmouth Channel Web link to verify the schedule for yourself.)

These two items, then, have left me wondering if Portsmouth might not have acquired infamous iron curtain. (No, they are not replacing the torn nTelos Pavilion top with it, either, although it would probably be more durable than the fabric.) Perhaps some official city spokesperson will offer another explanation, such as "technical difficulties." Pardon my skepticism, but why do "technical difficulties" crop up when something that might embarrass people seeking re-election is scheduled to air the weekend before the election? Will someone clear up the "technical difficulties" after Tuesday, May 4? You will not want to miss the exciting conclusion of the saga. Please stay tuned!

Mark Geduldig-Yatrofsky

Despite what Mayor Holley and Council Members Benn and Pitts say about the Virginian-Pilot endorsements (see "A school team for Portsmouth council"), the newspaper demonstrated the truth of President Lincoln's assertion that "you can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Messrs. Benn and Pitts talk the good talk about how important schools are every four years when they come up for reelection. In between, though, it is business as usual.

Not very long ago, Mr. Benn even floated the idea of reverting to an appointed, rather than elected, school board. He proposed that as a way to end the bickering between City Council and the Board. Although that would resolve the immediate problem, because Board members who irritated Council members would not get reappointed, it is most unlikely that it would benefit the schools in any way. If we the people who elect the City Council members are the also the electors of the School Board, how can we the people make good choices for the former and bad choices for the latter?

Mark Geduldig-Yatrofsky

Home Briefs Date Book Hot Topics In the Wind News Your Turn!