Chesterfield Democrats Take Aim at Republican-led Process for Filing Midlothian Board of Supervisors Seat Monday, July 17, 2006
Posted by Conaway B. Haskins III in Uncategorized.trackback
Having lost their lone representative on Chesterfield’s Board of Supervisors, county Democrats are doing what they can to ensure that the appointment of Ed Barber’s replacement will be the result of a fair, open and honest process. They are responding to comments like those of Vice Chairman Kelly Miller (R) who told the Village News that he wants to appoint, “the person who is best suited to serve the county, although I am a Republican. I’m not going to stand here and say I’m looking to appoint a Democrat.”
With applications closed as of 5 p.m. today, and with the previous announcement that BOS members would deliberate among themselves in an executive session that is not open to the public, the Chesterfield County Democratic Committee issued the following strongly worded statement today:
“The Chesterfield County Democratic Committee today called for the Board of Supervisors to deliberate the appointment of a Midlothian Supervisor in open session. Lynne E. Cooper, spokesperson for the Committee, said, ‘This individual will be serving and representing the citizens of Midlothian. However, because this person is appointed and not elected, and, therefore, the voters’ will has not been heard, the public has a right to observe and listen to the deliberations to understand the rationale for the appointment. Certainly, the outpouring of potential appointees and public comments shows the intense interest by the citizenry of Midlothian in this process and its outcome.’
‘Recently the town of Blacksburg also had a vacancy to fill on their Town Council and they wisely chose to deliberate their selection in public session and not in executive session. We call on the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors to forsake their planned policy of closed doors and smoke filled rooms and to let the sunshine in. The citizens of Chesterfield and particularly Midlothian deserve no less.’”
I find the “R” and “D” thing so silly when it comes to local politics…really, what does it matter?
can silly partisian games ever be put to rest?
what’s the poltical affliation of the local dog catcher?
The local dog catcher is not setting policies and regulations.
It is “disgusting” when ANY group representing the “people” meets behind closed doors…you can bet they are up to no good.
Instead of “ordinary citizens” being tapped and wired I think EVERY public official should be tapped and wired so we’ll know what’s going on in those closed door meetings…Thanks for exposing the filthy politics….
They sure do protest when the least little truth gets out don’t they?
Kevin:
Two reasons the “R” and “D” is important in this context.
1) Power of the Incumbency – Republicans want to appoint a Republican on the theory that it will be that much easier to re-elect a Republican in November.
2) Grooming – The person who is appointed to replace Barber will get to put “Board of Supervisors” on their resume and use it down the road to run for some other office.
One thing that drove the Republican rise to power in the 1980’s was their focus on local offices that people said didn’t matter.
Kevin, it all matters.
In Chesterfield the R and D are above all else. The present board has no intent to nominate anyone that will disagree with their agenda. That’s why they want to do every thing behind closed doors. Otherwise the public would find out how petty and self serving they really are. The sad part is they really don’t care for public opinion. My prediction is they will appoint a known Republican, registered or Republican committee member, who will run in November. Even The Times Distress Editoral on the the 11th of July stated ” The board should not be kingmakers”…the person nominated should not run in the special election.
Heck, I just hope the Board doesn’t appoint a Democrat thats another stealth pedophile. Lynn Cooper is a straight up idiot…were it not FOR the present Board of Supervisors, a Democrat would not have been appointed as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors. Some gratitude, you would think Lynne Cooper would respond as a statesman and offer support to the Board in search of a TEMPORARY candidate…instead, she throws needless hand greneades? Pure idiot Lynne, pure idiot…some Republicans stuck their necks out and appointed a Democrat to the Chairmanship of the BOS…now this nonsense from Lynne Cooper? No wonder why Dems can’t pick up anything in Chesterfield.
Just why was it that so many Democrats in Chesterfield were against putting internet filters on the library computers to protect children from Porn? Hummm…makes you wonder if any were in cahoots with Barber. I think that the present Board of Supervisors will give the folks interested in the appointment process a fair hearing…just like they gave the internet filters on library computers a fair hearing….Remember that is was the Board’s lone Democrat, Ed Barber, that voted against putting internet porn filters on computers in libraries? Makes you wonder if Chesterfield Democrats have sworn an oath to protect pedohpiles. Eat that Lynne Cooper
It was a Democrat led objection to putting protective internet filters on library computers to protect kids from porn, RIGHT?….Did Lynne Cooper support putting filters on computers to protect kids from Porn? Or did she follow the lead of Barber and support not blocking porn on the library computers? I don’t know where Mrs. Cooper stood on this issue, but if she was actually opposed to putting internet filters on computers in an effort to block porn…kinda makes you wonder what her motivations were. Perhaps we now know why Democrat Ed Barber didn’t want filters on the computers….
Jehrico Billy: You talk as though the BOS did a great service by electing Barber chairman in 2005. What you missed was the FACT that when Barber and the NEW BOS came into being in 1992,With two New Republicans, one Independent, one Democrat, and one OLD Republican, they talked about doing away with party politics and rotating the chairmanship between each. But when it came Barbers turn regular old Republican politics came back they just couldn’t stand for a Democrat to be chairman. It took more then 10 YEARS before they could do the “dirty deed”. By that time Barber was voting more conservative than the so call conservative Republicans in Chesterfield. That’s why he became Chairman
What the party giveth, the party can taketh away…such as this Seat during this November’s special election….again, Lynn Cooper is an idiot, just wanted to say that again. However your statement that “By that time Barber was voting more conservative than the so call conservative Republicans in Chesterfield” is false. I think Kelly Miller is the best conservative on that board since Harry Daniel….The voters rejected Ed Barber on two seperate occastions for higher office because he was not conservative enough. So much for a bi-partisan approach on the Board because if Lynne Cooper is the Democratic Spokesman, there will be no olive brances handed out again, I guarantee it and we won the fight to freely associate as political parties on the local level, so don’t get pious, freedom of association is a constitutional right, period…it doesn’t matter if Barber wanted to do away with it or not…he is now free to associate with others of his kind….too bad its not in jail….
Jerico Billy: Why must you mention Lynn Cooper in every message? Are you hoping that if you say it enough some one might believe you? As some of the views you express seem to put you in the far right wing of the Republican party, Lynn Cooper resides in the far left wing of the Democratic party. Neither of you will ever move to the center where most of the citizens reside. But to use guilt by association does not serve the discussion. Yes, you are correct freedom of association is a right as is the freedom to not associate . As for Ed Barber, the Republicans in the last election didn’t even run a candidate because they considered Barber the best republican they had on the board based on his voting record. finally check the records Barber only made one attempt for higher office.
Interestingly, Barber’s run in 2001 is the only instance I could find where the Richmond Times-Dispatch endorsed a Democrat over a Republican (and, in that case, over an Independent) for a General Assembly seat (going back to 1995).
Dear Oldmanmidlo:
Barber made TWO runs for higher office, this first one he lost was against Lee Ware in 1998, occasioned by the election of former Delegate John Watkins to the state Senate to replace Joe Bennedetti who resigned to serve in the Gilmore administration.
The second run that Barber made for higer office (and lost) was in 2001 when it was Barber versus Marrs versus John Conrad…that race was won by Marrs.
So, while I have checked my records…remember that I’m making a list, checking it twice, gonna find out whose naughty and nice, because Jehrico Billy the fact checker is in town. I won’t make fun of you for not picking up on this sooner, I’ll just let it slide as a senior moment on your part…I’ll be there in thirty years, so I would not want someone picking on my memory.
Just what is my hope for the upcoming appointment on the Cfield BOS? Glad you asked. I hope the BOS avoids picking a closet pedophile from the Democrat Party to fill the seat. As exhibited with Barber, they’re hard to pick out…so instead of trying to profile for who may be a pedophile, lets just avoid picking someone from the Democrat Party altogether, that’s the safe course here, no? when it comes to the temporary appointment. Best.
IT SHOULDN’T MATTER WHAT PARTY THE APPOINTEE IS FROM! We are not deciding abortion issues, or gay marriages. This is local government. There are only two people who have expressed interest in serving with the experience to do the job. One is a Democrat, one is not. They are both lawyers and one will have to give up a majority of his practice to serve. But, he will have the ability to see crap development in front of him and can beat the other (who may want to see the Watkins project stalled.) in the November election. If they appoint someone with no history or support from the community, they won’t hold the seat.
If I were a power hungry Supervisor, I would appoint someone that can win in November over an unknown with no experience. From a party prospective, it is smarter to try and gain the seat in the long run, three months means nothing.
I think the citizens of Midlothian deserve better than a puppet, carefully placed and told what to do. The only way to avoid that is to appoint someone with experience. Anyone can learn how to give a resolution. However, the ability to make wise land use decisions requires time, knowledge, and understanding of the process that can’t be mastered in three months.
Oh, I have heard rumblings that the deliberations might be held in open session. I suppose we’ll see.
Not a gadfly:
Why, oh why do you assume that the appointment will be a set up for a future run for the BOS Seat? Why have you come to that conclusion? What two propositions NOT ASSUMPTIONS lead you to that logical conclusion? Do you have insight we in the general public do not?
Jehrico Billy : I stand corrected you are correct about Barber running twice. I forgot about Ware. Must have been a senior moment. But If I use your logic about not electing any Democrat because they might be a closet pedophile, Then lets not elect any Republican because they might be a thief, Like Bob Russell former state senator who took money from a youth group, and dared them to do something about it. Arogance know’s no party lines
Jehrico Billy : I stand corrected you are correct about Barber running twice. I forgot about Ware. Must have been a senior moment. But If I use your logic about not electing any Democrat because they might be a closet pedophile, Then lets not elect any Republican because they might be a thief, Like Bob Russell Chesterfields former Republican state senator who took money from a youth group, and dared them to do something about it. Arrogance knows no party lines
Ahh, Oldmanmidlo….my senior moment is exposed in the sunshine….I had forgotten about the former Senator that used to hold Senator Martin’s seat. Touche’. But, remember the spirit that my post was made in…Lynne Cooper, the “SPOKESPERSON” for the Chesterfield Democrat Party, is out there making wild statements about how the process for a temporary appointment to the Midlo. BOS seat is not open…the prospective nominee has been birthed in stealth in a backroom deal….She has completely forgotten that it was two Republicans that acted in the spirit of bipartisanship and goodwill by voting Barber in as Chairman. So, Lynne Cooper has taken it upon herself to trample on that goodwill to advance a negative tone of discord and seeming dis-illusionment with the TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT PROCESS? Because Democrat Pedophile Ed Barber resinged his seat on July 9, that triggered one election for the Midlo. BOS seat ahead of next year elections when all seats will be up for election…including Midlo again. So, there will be many bites at the apple for many and any candidates to run…to excercise their rights to run for public office. Yet somehow the process for a TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT offends her, the process that is codified in state law and in our County Charter? Is this what we can expect for our previous demonstrations of goodwill and bipartisanship? Seems like Lynne Cooper has a Battleship mouth, rowboat legs, and a memory as short as a minnow. If this is how the Chesterfield Democrat Party wants to react when they were given a chance to govern, and A DEMOCRAT PEDOPHILE screwed it up for them, why should the public give them a chance of governing at any responsible level in Chesterfield. No honor, no respect, and no loyalty. They are about to be reminded just who runs the show. Great job Lynne Cooper, you just set your party back 15 years. I can’t wait for the election. By the way, its interesting that the Chesterfield Democrat Party only asked Barber to resign…notice they did not mention anything about Barber serving any jail time for SEXUALLY OFFENDING his teenage stepdaughter. Perfect example of Democrats being soft on crime and wanting Pedophiles to roam the streets instead of the inside of a jail. The Chesterfield Democrat Party could not even summon the courage to ask that a Democrat Pedophile be sent to prison. This is the Democrat vision of improving Chesterfield’s quality of life? What is their definition of Chesterfield now?….a chicken for every pot and a free range pedophile for every street corner? The Chesterfield Democrat Party is soft on crime, espicially when the crimes involve the sexual abuse of children. This is what Lynne Cooper stands for…be leary of their nominee this November.
I usually stay out of the comment section, but I had to say something. Jehrico Bill, you seem to have an odd fixation with Lynne Cooper. What gives? Also, when you take the local Democratic party to task for not asking that Barber be shipped off to prison, it may be prudent to remember that it was the prosecution’s responsibility to ask for jail time and the judge’s responsibility to accept or decline the plea. Once the sentence was handed down, that was it. Were Democrats supposed to ask that the prosecution/judge reconsider after the fact?
Ironically, I don’t recall the Chesterfield Republicans officially asking for Barber’s resignation prior to the Democrats doing so. As for Democrats loving pedophiles, last time I checked, it was a Republican Bush appointee who was just busted for that kind of thing…while working at Homeland Security! I don’t want to go tit-for-tat, but your comments are a bit over the top…
She was out of line her boss…disrespectful to those that legitimately tried to be bipartisan….that will not go unanswered. And if your talking Officially, our Board of Supervisors members, ALL REPUBLICANS, spoke for our party when theY asked Barber to resign…AND THEY DID SO PRIOR TO THE LOCAL DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE DOING SO, so ironically, we beat them to the punch because Republicans actually have elected officials to speak for us in the county, unlike the Democrats. Gloves are off…this is how the Democrat Party likes to repay folks on our side who are really trying to be bipartisan??? By going to the press and trying to falsely frame a story about a BAD PROCESS for the appointment??? Seems to me like some really like to bite the hand that was reaching out in a friendly manner…so much for trying to work with Democrats, lesson learned, indeed. No more talking….just shoe leather to take back this seat. In pointing out that the local Democrat Party failed to ask for Barber to serve jail time, I just think that its a bit peculiar that the same party that didn’t want filters installed on computers in our libraries to protect kids from porn also failed to demand that Barber serve any jail time, the Democrat party is soft on crime, what good is a weak resignation request when you have a pedophile walking free?
Conaway, its a bit of a stretch to reach up to the Bush Administration in an attempt to draw a parallel to a Democrat pedophile, WHO WAS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, that still lives amongst us in Chesterfield, that is over the top my friend…I still like you though.
Jehrico Billy: You don’t have to look to Washington to find a closet Republican taking liberties with an under age girl, since that seems to be your driving force. You may find an undercover one still on the board. “He who is without sin be the first to cast the stone”. The chairman may not have clean hands when it comes to that brand of moral failure. He needs to explain why he had to resign as the football coach at Matoaka High.
The Chesterfield Republican party would never win a battle on moral high ground, If the public really knew their dirty laundry. Does Billy Davenport still beat his children?. Is Jeff Applegate still chasing county secretaries? Do you really want to open that can of worms ?
Ok, here we go.
The one thing that ALL FOUR of the current supervisors, most of the staff and the majority of the Republican Party agree on is that Mr. Gecker would be dangerous in that seat. He has the experience to do the job but they are worried about their economic engine never having a chance for a desire to protect Chesterfield Towne Center.
Mr. Gecker is a proud man. A proud man won’t run if he can’t win. I don’t think of the appointment as a setup to the election. If the appointee is running, he/she will have a busy three months.
However, if the thought of Mr. Gecker holding that seat frightens so many, it would be wise to appoint someone who can beat him in the election.
The other choice is Patty Carpenter. I think she has stated she won’t seek election in November and it would give her some experience for the School Board seat she wants.
I don’t think she is a registered Republican either…so party loyalty shouldn’t matter. Therefore, they might as well appoint someone with experience.
Mr. Kotvas RUINED his chances when he shot off his mouth on the radio. Stupid move.
I think Dickie’s nightmare is far from over and he is trying to protect himself.
Mr. Miller has a tough decision to make. He is an honorable man and even though some may not agree, I know he has labored over this decision.
In the end, no matter what they do, some people will not be happy.
What would you do?
NAG:I didn’t catch Kotvas on the radio. What did say?
I heard only about 5 seconds of it, but the outrage as I’ve heard it, is that if he’s elected, his first order of business would be to get rid of Lane, along with other sorted comments I didn’t hear. Lane will be retiring within a year or two anyway, as most people know.
Lane took the hit for the 18k plane trip for Dickie. Why he did I’ll never understand. But, Lane has served this county well for over 30 years. He is seen throughout the state as an example of what a county administrator should be. (I’ve heard other localities supervisors say this, it isn’t exaggerated)
The majority of the board has a lot of respect for him, and in a county with almost 300,000 people, he has a solid reputation. Yes, he’s made mistakes but who hasn’t?
If Mr. Kotvas wants to serve the people of Midlothian, he will need Lanes help as he knows nothing. Any smart official understands that staff support is essential. It was a stupid move.
Besides that, a lot Republicans from what I hear are pretty upset about it. It seems to me as we gear up for a canvass that this is not the time to alienate your fellow party members.
WOW NAG you must have the inside track to the committee. You called it right on the money, about Patty Carpenter. You only made one tiny error. She has from my source joined the Republican Committee. For the reasons you stated”grooming for the School Board)”. I understand she is a fine lady and I only hope she does not kowtow to the committee and remains independent
I only discovered this online squabble. And I find it disturbing that anonymous posters feel so free to throw insults and accusations. How are you much different from the hooded KKK of our past? I’d suggest that all on this board and similar boards have the courage to come out in the bright light of day and be accountable for your statements.
I cannot imagine Patrick Henry would so conveniently hide behind alias and anonymity. And I am suspect of those who make such broad and inflammatory rhetoric as to imply that Democrats are pedophiles. The posters of such rubbish I suggest are the real threat to our community.
And I have no fear to add my name to my comments.
I noticed in the TD today that Will Shewmake now lists his party affiliation as Republican. Very interesting from a person who was connected with six Democratic campaigns in the recent past. Some people have no scruples and are for sale to the highest bidder. I guess he will do anything to win an election, which begs the question, Will he sell out to his developer buddies after he’s elected. For sale at any price is a price too high for Midlothian citizens to pay
Mr. Garnett-
Not all of us who post under an anonymous name are insulting to others.
Oldmanmidlo-
As you state in comment # 26, Ms. Carpenter is a wonderful lady. However, your comments seem to contradict each other. As you mention, she possibly joined the Republican committee to help her win the School Board seat.
I fail to see how Mr. Shewmake is any different. They were both without party. Now they both wish to serve as Republicans. Yes, Mr. Shewmake has done some work for Democrats. I believe he was a college Republican. He also supported Senator Watkins. The highest bidder line really doesn’t work here. What if he is like so many others…in the middle? As I said in my original post, this shouldn’t be about party politics.
I happen to think Mr. Shewmake would do a great job. As an attorney, he represents his clients. As a supervisor, he would represent the residents of Midlothian. He would be giving up his land use practice to serve and would know when his “buddies” are trying to pass bad development.
According to the résumé’s, he has devoted an enormous amount of time to the residents of Midlothian through many civic activities. He seems to have a lot of support from the community. What’s wrong with that? Are you running?
The difference is Carpenter was never involved in politics and joined. Shewmake after serving democratic causes against Republican philosophies joined as an opportunist to further his ends not the parties. It show he is not trustworthy and no I am not running for any thing But it does show what I said about you earlier. From your thought patterns and writings say Hi to all your cohorts on the Republican committee
Contrary to what you might wish to believe, I don’t have any “Cohorts” on any committee. I pay attention. Your comments in some places suggest you are a Republican. If this is so, then why do you treat other seemingly Republican individuals like they are public enemy #1? Some of them may be lousy leaders, but as we have all seen party politics has nothing to do with character. Your attempt to tarnish Mr. Shewmakes character because he wants to join the Republican Party is laughable and totally against what the party stands for. Your points still contradict each other. I certainly hope you’re not so naive as to think Ms. Carpenter, while a great lady, hasn’t been more than casually involved in Chesterfield politics. Remember the middle school?
There were several applicants that have changed party, joined party or said they primarily vote a certain way. Why not disparage them all equally?
One Observer: I may have been a little harsh. But, you do your research, you listen to the community, you even Google, a new experience, most of the names are know entities, you ask more questions and one candidate stands out. And not for the good. While he may have been involved in his community. The well documented vast swing of ideology of Will Shewmake leaves one to wonder about his credibility. If a person is a democrat, republican, independent, fine as long as they stand for something and align to that philosophy. Yes, Independent can be a philosophy! But, in the Shewmake’s case it’s a moving target, that seems to be only based on who can get him elected.
Mr. Shewmake should not be considered due to his close association with Mr. Barber. He made the comment that “he is still one of the greatest men I have ever known” This comment made AFTER Mr. Barber, a registered sex offender, pled guilty to sexually abusing a minor girl. He should never be considered. Regardless of which political party he currently says he belongs to. Mr. Gecker also has ties far too close to Mr. Barber. Both Shewmake and Gecker were in court with Mr. Barber the day he admitted his guilt to abusing a child. Both of these men have children. That shows their true character. Neither of these men are fit to represent the citzenry.
If you want a comparison, use Shewmake vs Hening
Hening- Runs in special election for Cantor’s old seat in 73rd Va District as Independent(Republican) losses big moves to Chesterfield changes to Republican natural progression. Political Contributions $1823 to himself as independent relative throws in another 1000 listed as independent.
Shewmake- campaign treasurer for Democrat Barber 1995 campaign involved in three other Chesterfield Barber Campaigns 1991,1999,2003. Runs Democrat Barber campaign special election 1998 Barber loses big
Shewmake runs Democrat Barber campaign for House 2001 Barber doesn’t even win Chesterfield
Political Contributions
Barber, Edward B Democrat $1,538-1998,2001
Beyer for Governor Democrat $375-1997
Hall, Franklin P Democrat $250-2004
Kirtley, Bruce W Democrat$200-1997
McEachin for Attorney General Democrat $450-2000,2001
McEachin, A Donald Democrat $200-1999
Va Senate Democrat Caucus $500-1996,1997
Warner for Governor Democrat $250-2001
Watkins, John C Republican $250-2005
Wheaton, James J Democrat $500-1997
Contributions as Shewmake & Baronin
McEachin for Attorney General (D-ATTGEN) $500 2001
Barber, Edward B (D-H068) $720 2001
$220 2001 8/31/2001 In kind Postage & Secretarial Services from Shewmake office
$500 cash 2001
$200 1998 For Barber special election
Commonwealth Victory Fund 1996 Democratic PAC $150
Results:Henning political contributions $2,823 to (Independent/Republican) 2001
Shewmake Political contributions $6453
$6203 To Democratic causes 1996-2005 including $220 for the use of his own secretary
$250 to Republican John Watkins Oct 2005
You make the call
If you want a comparison, use Shewmake vs Sterling Hening
Hening- Runs in special election for Cantor’s old seat in 73rd Va District as Independent(Republican) losses big moves to Chesterfield changes to Republican natural progression. Political Contributions $1823 to himself as independent relative throws in another 1000 listed as independent.
Shewmake- campaign treasurer for Democrat Barber 1995 campaign involved in three other Chesterfield Barber Campaigns 1991,1999,2003. Runs Democrat Barber campaign special election 1998 Barber loses big
Shewmake runs Democrat Barber campaign for House 2001 Barber doesn’t even win Chesterfield
Political Contributions
Barber, Edward B Democrat $1,538-1998,2001
Beyer for Governor Democrat $375-1997
Hall, Franklin P Democrat $250-2004
Kirtley, Bruce W Democrat$200-1997
McEachin for Attorney General Democrat $450-2000,2001
McEachin, A Donald Democrat $200-1999
Va Senate Democrat Caucus $500-1996,1997
Warner for Governor Democrat $250-2001
Watkins, John C Republican $250-2005
Wheaton, James J Democrat $500-1997
Contributions as Shewmake & Baronin
McEachin for Attorney General (D-ATTGEN) $500 2001
Barber, Edward B (D-H068) $720 2001
$220 2001 8/31/2001 In kind Postage & Secretarial Services from Shewmake office
$500 cash 2001
$200 1998 For Barber special election
Commonwealth Victory Fund 1996 Democratic PAC $150
Results:Henning political contributions $2,823 to (Independent/Republican) 2001
Shewmake Political contributions $6453
$6203 To Democratic causes 1996-2005 including $220 for the use of his own secretary
$250 to Republican John Watkins Oct 2005
You make the call
If you want a comparison, use Shewmake vs Hening
Hening- Runs in special election for Cantor’s old seat in 73rd Va District as Independent(Republican) losses big moves to Chesterfield changes to Republican natural progression. Political Contributions $1823 to himself as independent relative throws in another 1000 listed as independent.
Results:Henning political contributions $2,823 to (Independent/Republican) 2001
Shewmake Political contributions $6453
$6203 To Democratic causes 1996-2005 including $220 for the use of his own secretary
$250 to Republican John Watkins Oct 2005
You make the call
If you want a comparison, use Shewmake vs Hening
Hening- Runs in special election for Cantor’s old seat in 73rd Va District as Independent(Republican) losses big moves to Chesterfield changes to Republican natural progression.Political Contributions $1823 to himself as independent relative throws in another 1000 listed as independent.
Shewmake- campaign treasurer for Democrat Barber 1995 campaign involved in three other Chesterfield Barber Campaigns 1991,1999,2003. Runs Democrat Barber campaign special election 1998 Barber loses big
Shewmake runs Democrat Barber campaign for House 2001 Barber doesn’t even win Chesterfield
Political Contributions
Barber, Edward B Democrat $1,538-1998,2001
Beyer for Governor Democrat $375-1997
Hall, Franklin P Democrat $250-2004
Kirtley, Bruce W Democrat$200-1997
McEachin for Attorney General Democrat $450-2000,2001
McEachin, A Donald Democrat $200-1999
Va Senate Democrat Caucus $500-1996,1997
Warner for Governor Democrat $250-2001
Watkins, John C Republican $250-2005
Wheaton, James J Democrat $500-1997
Contributions as Shewmake & Baronin
McEachin for Attorney General (D-ATTGEN) $500 2001
Barber, Edward B (D-H068) $720 2001
$220 2001 8/31/2001 In kind Postage & Secretarial Services from Shewmake office
$500 cash 2001
$200 1998 For Barber special election
Commonwealth Victory Fund 1996 Democratic PAC $150
Results:Henning political contributions $2,823 to (Independent/Republican) 2001
Shewmake Political contributions $6453
$6203 To Democratic causes 1996-2005 including $220 for the use of his own secretary
$250 to Republican John Watkins Oct 2005
You make the call
If you want a comparison, use Shewmake vs Hening
Hening- Runs in special election for Cantor’s old seat in 73rd Va District as Independent(Republican) losses big moves to Chesterfield changes to Republican natural progression. Political Contributions $1823 to himself as independent relative throws in another 1000 listed as independent.
Shewmake- campaign treasurer for Democrat Barber 1995 campaign involved in three other Chesterfield Barber Campaigns 1991,1999,2003. Runs Democrat Barber campaign special election 1998 Barber loses big
Shewmake runs Democrat Barber campaign for House 2001 Barber doesn’t even win Chesterfield
Political Contributions
Barber, Edward B Democrat $1,538-1998,2001
Beyer for Governor Democrat $375-1997
Hall, Franklin P Democrat $250-2004
Kirtley, Bruce W Democrat$200-1997
McEachin for Attorney General Democrat $450-2000,2001
McEachin, A Donald Democrat $200-1999
Va Senate Democrat Caucus $500-1996,1997
Warner for Governor Democrat $250-2001
Watkins, John C Republican $250-2005
Wheaton, James J Democrat $500-1997
Contributions as Shewmake & Baronin
McEachin for Attorney General (D-ATTGEN) $500 2001
Barber, Edward B (D-H068) $720 2001
$220 2001 8/31/2001 In kind Postage & Secretarial Services from Shewmake office
$500 cash 2001
$200 1998 For Barber special election
Commonwealth Victory Fund 1996 Democratic PAC $150
Results:Henning political contributions $2,823 to (Independent/Republican) 2001
Shewmake Political contributions $6453
$6203 To Democratic causes 1996-2005 including $220 for the use of his own secretary
$250 to Republican John Watkins Oct 2005
You make the call
Indulge me, but I find some of the conversation here embarrassing if not idiotic. Pedophilia is NOT contagious. Regardless of Ed Barber’s sin, is the support and friendship of years to be dismissed? What Christian principle are those who are so judgmental alluding to?
I know little of Ed Barber, but it seems he gave years of his life to public service – something that is rare and hardly anyone acknowledges. And to paint anyone who knew him, was his friend, and doesn’t desert him during this period, as a pedophile is beyond comprehension. I see that as more likely indicating personal courage and genuine friendship.
I don’t support Shewmake for this interim supervisor appointment, but my reason is not his associating with Barber – it is because I think it would reflect poorly on the board. I think it would be best appoint to someone who is NOT going to run in November (and thus not appear to give an advantage to a candidate the board might prefer) and to appoint preferably a Democrat to honor their belief in the need for diversity on the board and a fairer representation of the citizenry of the county.
Vetting has become far too invasive – would Thomas Jefferson, or Patrick Henry even pass the “family value” criteria of today’s politics? Our community is diverse – and the best, imaginative, wisest, most intelligent and capable among us may not be the white male Protestant happily married with two children and living in Bon Air and being the coach of a local kids soccer team.
We need to be more inclusive – to celebrate diversity – to more broadly represent the needs and values of the community.
And the divisiveness and pettiness shown in many of the above postings are not representative of the best our county.
At least the procedure is good with the chosen canidate forced to run at the next available election. In many localities, the chosen gets the rest of the term.
It is time for Chesterfield to go to seven or nine districts. With 300 k in population and growing, five will not cut it. It only takes three to corrupt now. When Barber was arrested it meant that twenty percent of the board had been arrested.
Mr Lanksky: very good point. This has been proposed at least twice in the last 15 years, but dismissed by the board. The seed of change remains with the board that wants to keep power in as few hands as possible.
Mr. Garnett –
Your points are well made. I would only mention that the while I see the logic behind appointing someone who isn’t running in November, three months is not enough time for anyone to become familiar with the various processes involved. If they appoint someone with no experience it will have the same effect as appointing no one at all. The district MUST not be without capable representation. I certainly would not want to see the rest of the board instructing an inexperienced Midlothian representative. Would You?
Mr. Danbury –
None of us will ever know what happened. The girl said she would ruin Barber…well, she did. He was dumb enough to let her. I agree that Barber had no choice but to step down after his plea deal But, because I wasn’t there, I won’t form an opinion either way on what actually happened:. He is gone. End of story.
To infer someone associated with Ed would be of substandard character is narrow minded and totally unfair.
I know Mr. Shewmake. His character and work ethic would be a tremendous benefit to the citizens of Midlothian. I suppose that is one of the reasons 138 people signed his petition of support in two days. He has devoted many years to the betterment of the district. This is one time party affiliation shouldn’t mater. On that note, of the candidates running in Nov, two or three of them joined the Republican Party (One last night) for the sole purpose of the election. That puts them in the same boat with Mr. Shewmake.
The election process will afford Midlothian residents the opportunity to ask questions of the candidates and make decisions based on personal experience. That is a far better predictor of a candidate’s character and values than political contributions. In all of the reprints of the same info, you have neglected to mention Mr. Shewmake was a college Republican.
I agree… You make the call. BUT, base your opinion on Mr. Shewmake’s (and the other candidates) attitude and experience. Ask him questions; get to know him, then sit in judgment.
By the way… I TOTALLY AGREE WE NEED 7 OR 9 DISTRICTS!!!
WE NEEDED THEM YEARS AGO!!!
TO: One Observer
Again, I must say I find it uncomfortable to respond to an anonymous poster. You seem to be backing a particular candidate and so I think it would be fairer if you identified yourself.
I think all of the candidates are capable and could come up to speed and be effective. I think it is common sense, intelligence, life experience, wisdom, and intention to fairness that is prerequisite. I think that if the board appoints a Republican or someone they want on the board for political reasons or someone who will run in November, that there will be a backlash — with 17 vying for the job, I hope the board gets the message that the county citizenry is going to be more involved in county government in the future.
Midlothian put Ed Barber, a Democrat, in that office, and it seems fair that the board would reflect on that – a Republican appointment that is seen as the board’s choice for November may not be appreciated in Midlothian or in the county.
Mr. Garnett –
If I could comment under my name and not risk loosing my job, I would do so gladly. I agree it is far more honorable way to communicate, but my comments aren’t defamatory in nature.
I completely agree that life experience, wisdom and above all fairness are key in this decision. But, as an example, there is a zoning case on the agenda this evening in Midlothian that will be deferred because the board wants Midlothian to have representation before the case is heard. Land use and zoning decisions require a large amount of experience, practical knowledge, and a thorough understanding of the different climates within Midlothian. Once the board rezones a piece of land, it is done. If the Midlothian representative doesn’t fully understand the impacts of the case or the wishes of the community, the damage would be done and difficult to reverse.
That is why I feel so strongly about Mr. Shewmake. He wrote much of the Midlothian land use plans, understands the community, and is an honorable human being.
In my opinion, party politics shouldn’t have anything to do with this decision. They need to appoint the best person for the job.
To One Observer,
I am finding it difficult to respond to your admission that if you were to reveal your identity that you could risk losing your job.
And I do respect and appreciate your well-voiced comments and respect the fact that even though you are “anonymous”, that your comments have not been defamatory.
I can think of many times in my life when I felt constrained to criticize my employer but I do think that had I done it in good faith and honorably, I would have been a better person for it. As a gay person, I have bit my tongue too many times rather than defend against bigotry, bias, discrimination and ignorance – I’m not proud of that.
I think that this wonderful and fully unappreciated freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, and freedom of association, has to be exercised and insisted upon and continually defended or it will be eroded away. It is in the best tradition of our country and a mark of real courage to speak one’s mind – and an equally important tradition to listen to opposing points of view. I have no easy answer – but I do respect your candor.
I’m still not sold on the idea that extensive zoning skills and experience need be a prerequisite for the job, and can even imagine an argument that says that a common sense generalist with wisdom and intentions for fairness could be a better candidate. After all, not all Chesterfieldians are in favor of a bunch more Watkins Centers over a more balanced improvement in the quality of life.
The BOS did a decent job on the appointment.
Watching the BOS, it appears that Mr. King is ill at ease when citizens speak. I also think it is a little crass when they brag on each other and high county officials before the conclusion of meetings.
The County really needs a larger (and smarter) BOS. Period. I don’t care if the larger BOS is R, D, or I.
The county doesn’t necessarily need more districts. It does, however, need more supervisors – if only to shake up the status quo which has the current supervisors easily forming coalitions and plotting against one another. My ideal solution would add two at-large seats to the existing five. The at-large seats would need to consider what’s best for the county AS A WHOLE to keep their seats.
Well anonymous Phantom, that’s an interesting proposal. Are you willing to do more about it than just post on a blog that only a few will read?
Do you have a suggestion of how to get from here to there? Or does anyone else who reads this?
It’s rumored that Ed Barber was possibly aligned with two other board members and thus could effectively control the board in the past – and going forward, that doesn’t seem to be the best way to run the county.
I would be open to anything to increase the numbers. I am interested in going foward. I would be in favor of more districts as it will reduce the number of constituents for each member. This would help both the BOS member and the citizens.
Incresing the BOS also means increasing the School Board and Planning Comm.
Chesterfield will be the dominant locality in the central VA by 2010. It is time now to put into place the govenment that will take us there.
The powers that be need to realize 3 no growth Loundon type BOS members could wreck the county.
Mr.Lanksky :I find it interesting that you mention Loundon county as an example for “anti development” supervisors. Loundon has nine supervisors. There fore you need a majority of five to stop development. It’s much easier to do with the present board make up. I believe we need nine as Loundon. With nine you have about 34,000 for each district. You wouldn’t even have to remodel the board room. All you would have to do is make the county attorney, secretaries and administrator sit down with the other county employees in the front.
In the good ole boy system, change comes from the top. If having more Board of Supervisor members were a good idea for Chesterfield County, then how would a bottom up initiative to bring this about happen?
This county has 300,000 brains — why is it that only five are being used to bring suggestions, ideas, and proposals forward? This is 2006 not 1806 — isn’t there a better way? Wouldn’t it be novel, that in Virginia, a birthplace of democracy — that government by the people might again find a foothold?
But then, I’m just that naive citizen. And one who will be quickly and sternly told the realities of life I suppose.
In reference to Mr. Garnett’s question, “Are you willing to do more about it than just post on a blog that only a few will read?”
Yes, because I believe the current board members frequently take a too-narrow view of what’s best for the county, I would be willing to personally work toward adding two at-large seats to the existing board.
Admittedly, however, I am unaware of how to proceed at this time. I imagine the process to amend the county’s charter would be quite complex. It’s also an unlikely proposition if we would have to rely on the present board to approve such a change.
If anyone out there has a clue about the process, …?
P.S. Mr. Garnett, I’m sorry that you’re uncomfortable corresponding to anonymous bloggers. Unfortunately, I’d be a bit “uncomfortable” corresponding in any other way. I hope you find some value in our comments anyway.
Addendum to my comment above:
I think the county could benefit from adding two at-large seats to the current school board and planning commission as well. The representatives in these organizations are too closely aligned with their own districts’ supervisors to offer any real creativity in addressing the county’s problems. In my opinion, cronyism is evident in many (if not most) of the actions taken by these groups.
School Board members are elected by the voters in each district, just as the supervisors are. Planning Commissioners are appointed by the supervisor from their respective district.
I don’t believe “at large” would pass muster with the Justice department. Chesterfield is still under the Voting rights Act It would be better to just go with 7 0r 9 districts
Here’s a suggestion. Bloggers could be an impetus to change — more than just the echo chamber type of online comments.
I’m intrigued with the movement towards face-to-face meetings of bloggers — anyone else on here think that a face-to-face meeting of bloggers of Chesterfield County might create some more effective ideas as to bringing about creative change in our community?
Thank you, oldmanmidlo, for pointing out the Voting Rights Act and the need for obtaining “preclearance” for any changes in voting patterns. In researching your point this evening, I got quite an education!
One question, though – why do you think the DOJ might consider Chesterfield’s adding “at-large” seats to be a discriminatory practice? Is it because it would be perceived as diluting the voting power of the other (geographical) districts? Do you know of other similar cases I could research where this was an issue?
Thanks!
I’ll have to research that question further. My personal point on the issue of why it would not pass muster is do to the growing Hispanic population of Chesterfield. If you were to add two” at large seats” the argument could be made that they would likely be filled by “white males” do to the overall demographics of Chesterfield, where-as if you had seven smaller districts the possibilities of a minority having a controlling percentage in one or more of the redrawn districts is a distinct possibility
Phantom: I thought ” the phantom knows what lurks in the minds of men”, Iam sorry I digress. Here are a couple of links concerning at-large court cases.
http://www.law.unc.edu/PDFs/NCVRAtestimony.pdf
http://www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/statecon/njtaxconvpapers/report5.doc
It’s nice to find a spot where Chesterfield folks can share ideas about improving their County. This may seem a bit off-topic, but can anyone tell me whether there is a Chesterfield organization of community associations? In other words, do the dozens of active community associations in Chesterfield have any type of formal umbrella organization?
The latest information on Chesterfield demographics are as follows:2004 data 2005 data to be available soon
White 74.1%
Hispanic 4.2%
Black 19.8%
Asian 2.3%
This doesn’t add up to 100% but it’s close. With a “minority” population of 25% logic says they should have at least one representative on the board now, based on the statistics. In the last redistricting after the 2000 census the argument was made by the county that the minorities were too wide spread to create a “minority” district. But, looking at the minority “clusters” on the chesterfield site ,and with the changing demographics in the last six years, there is the distinct possibility that Dale district will have a minority majority soon.
I don’t think there’s any chance of a majority minority district in Chesterfield any time soon, but a minority influence district is certainly a possibility. Increasing the number of districts from 5 to 7 would improve the chances of accomplishing this and would be looked at favorably by Justice.
Tired guy: At one time there was a listing of associations with contact information on the planning dept site. I don’t know if it is still there, but that is where i would call to start. As far as I know there is no “master organization” for neighborhood associations. They tend to group to local problems usually concerning zoning or road issues
It looks like there is a need for a County wide group (501c4 ?) to advocate good (ethical) government.
Where to start?
Maybe push expanding the BOS in the upcoming Midlo election. It is going to tke time for the idea to grow but this is a good time to start.
Mike:There was a loose group that started up in 1991, due to the same problems then that we face now. It was called C4 Concerned Citizens for Chesterfield County. Had a few meetings backed a few candidates help elected Jack McHale and Ed Barber. Things looked like they were going to change. Faded away, things went back to business as usual.
Good Idea, Hard to due in Chesterfield, without a group being compromised by the political parties. Good idea now is the time to give it a try again for the 2007 election. A non political party to run independent candidates. No political strings no developer or real estate contributions. That would be something unique for Chesterfield.
Where to start?
In my opinion, this is not an issue that sitting members of the BOS will pursue on their own, so the first thing is to generate support for the idea among influential community associations or groups such as the Responsible Growth Alliance.
Second, the candidates in the 2007 election for BOS should be asked to take a position on the issue. If the groundswell of support was large enough, hopefully the candidates would feel it was in their best interest to support the issue.
Third, once the new board took office, they should be asked to fulfill their campaign promise. They would have several years to work out the particulars since the change couldn’t occur until after the new U.S. Census in 2010. I believe the County charter would allow the board to make this change without any referendum or even a General Assembly-approved charter amendment. However, if the board wished, they could put the question on the ballot in the form of a proposed charter amendment. I have no doubt that it would pass easily.
I think that there are a lot of good common sense arguments that can be made in favor of expanding the BOS. Personally, I would also support a directly elected BOS chairman. Chesterfield is now the largest locality in the state without a directly elected chaiman or mayor.
Tired Guy: Very good ideas ,But we don’t necessarily have to wait until after 2010. Remember Texas! I believe there is a plan for seven districts that is sitting on a shelf in the courthouse that was shot down BOS, based on 2000 census data. The recent groundswell from this, and other blogs against nominating someone to the Midlothian seat ,who would run in November, carried great weight. I believe the discussion here changed “the business as usual” board mentality, as evidenced by the article yesterday in the Chesterfield Observer.
The Texas case may very well pave the way for intervening redistrictings such as what we’re discussing, but I believe Virginia law may still prohibit it, notwithstanding that decision. I’ll have to do a little research to be sure. However, from a practical point of view, I think a county redistricting and board expansion prior to that time would require strong initiative from the existing BOS and would entail extra expense. I think that is unlikely to happen. It seems like a long time to wait, but I’m afraid it won’t happen at all if candidates aren’t forced to go on record in favor of it at the next election.
Va code should not be a problem: to wit the reference to 24.2-304.1 refers to certain voting precincts. If you keep the voting precincts whole and just move them to other districts there shouldn’t be a problem, and the way I read it by Virginia law we can do it at any time. It will require a Chesterfield charter change which would have to go through the General Assembly.
§ 15.2-1211. Boundaries of magisterial and election districts.
A. County magisterial district boundary lines and names shall be as the governing bodies may establish. Subject to the provisions of § 24.2-304.1, whenever the boundaries of a county have been altered, the governing body shall, as may be necessary, redistrict the county into magisterial districts, change the boundaries of existing districts, change the name of any district, or increase or diminish the number of districts.
B. Whenever redistricting of magisterial or election districts is required as a result of annexation, the governing body of such county shall, within a reasonable time from the effective date of such annexation, not to exceed ninety days, commence the redistricting process which shall be completed within a reasonable time thereafter, not to exceed twelve months.
C. A county may by ordinance provide that the magisterial districts of the county shall remain the same, but that representation on the governing body shall be by election districts, in which event all sections of this Code providing for election or appointment on the basis of magisterial districts shall be construed to provide for election or appointment on the basis of election districts, including appointment to a school board as prescribed by §§ 22.1-36 and 22.1-44.
I am enjoying this conversation and hope that it can gain momentum.
And obliquely aligned to this discussion is a posting I made today to my blog concerning Chesterfield County government and which I encourage you to read.
http://marchtoadifferentdrummer.blogspot.com/
The Chesterfield charter states in part:
“Chapter 3.
Board of Supervisors.
§ 3.1. Composition and election.
The County of Chesterfield shall be divided into five magisterial districts,….. The board may redistrict or change the number, form of the membership or manner of electing board members in accordance with general law
without the necessity of amending the charter……”
So I think that the board could make the change on their own initiative without voter or General Assembly approval, but I think it’s very unlikely that they would.
§ 15.2-1211 seems to apply to situations when the county needs to redistrict due to boundary changes, which wouldn’t be applicable in this case. However, § 24.2-304.1, which you also reference, seems to provide an exception to the general rule (general rule = localities can only redistrict after the decennial census) that would allow a locality to redistrict at other times after changing the number of election districts. In theory then, Chesterfield’s new BOS in 2008 could increase the number of magisterial districts from 5 to 7 and then redistrict the county. However, to implement the new plan prior to the required decennial redistricting would presumably require cutting short the terms of the sitting members of the board, which raises additional potential hurdles.
I favor increasing the size of the BOS, and moving to a directly elected chairman, as soon as possible. From a practical and logistical standpoint, however, it seems to me that it probably can not be done until after the 2010 Census for the 2011 elections. I would love to be proven wrong.