Submit a Calendar Item
To submit an item for the Calendar of Events click here
Contact Us
Click Here for information on how to contact
The Journal.
Sign up!
Click Here to sign up for our email list.
Journal On-Line
Click
Here to go to
The Journal's On-Line Edition.
Available only to subscribers of the print edition.
|
Letters to the Editor
|
Anne Congdon responds on Colonial Beach school board action |
|
Letter to the Editor:
On Wednesday, September 9, 2006, the date of the most recent Colonial Beach School Board meeting, the Chairman of the School Board, Tim Trivett initiated an action in Executive Session, the purpose of which was to vote one member of the School Board, me, Anne Congdon, off. The School Board Chair asserts that I must be removed from the School Board because of my current residential status. However, according to the State Board of Elections Website, www.sbe.gov, there is a policy in place that covers a situation such as mine, for example when your home burns down, is rendered uninhabitable and you are in the process of rebuilding. These are new regulations that were proposed and approved by the Board of Elections on August 29, 2009.
To be exact, their website says, “pursuant to the requirement of 24.2-404(D), the following shall apply only in determining a person’s residence under Article II, Sec. 1 of the Constitution of Virginia and Title 24.2 of the Code of Virginia:” and it goes on to say under “Required Intent” – “A person whose home is destroyed or rendered uninhabitable does not lose residence at that home if he intends to return to the home when it is reconstructed or made habitable, unless he has either established a new domicile or has changed his voter registration.”
My voter registration has not changed from the Town of Colonial Beach and the plans for the rebuilding of 200 Monroe Street are on file at the Colonial Beach Zoning Office.
This action that was undertaken by the Colonial Beach School Board, in addition to being a violation of my civil rights, is a violation of the Code of Virginia, in particular Section 24.2-235, which describes in detail the process for removing an elected official from their position. This part of the Code states very clearly, “A petition for the removal of an officer shall state with reasonable accuracy and detail the grounds or reasons for removal and shall be signed by the person or persons making it under penalties of perjury. The circuit court shall not dismiss the petition solely because of an error or omission in the form of the petition relating to its statement of the grounds or reasons for removal provides a reasonable basis under 24.2-233 to consider the removal of the officer.
As soon as the petition is filed with the court, the court shall issue a rule requiring the officer to show cause why he should not be removed from office, the rule alleging in general terms the cause or causes for such removal. The rule shall be returnable in not less than five nor more than ten days and shall be served upon the officer with a copy of the petition. Upon return of the rule duly executed, unless good cause is shown for a continuance or postponement to a later day in the term, the case shall be tried on the day named in the rule and take precedence over all other cases on the docket. If upon trial it is determined that the officer is subject to removal under the provisions of 24.2-233, he shall be removed from office.”
In other words, the only guy who can remove an elected official, even a School Board member, from office, is the guy in the black robe. In this case the Westmoreland County Circuit Court Judge.
The actions of my fellow School Board members, also raises a question of intent. This surreptitious plan was put into play, according to the Chair, based upon the advice of Pat Lacey; School Board Attorney, Dean Atkins; Attorney for the Commonwealth and the State Board of Elections. Yet, none of their advice or counsel was heard by any other board member; none of the information credited to those three entities was relayed in writing. If in fact, the members of the School Board were interested in having a valid discussion regarding whether or not I should retain my seat on the Board and then making an informed decision which adhered to the laws of Virginia, then some advance notice of their concerns would have been an appropriate measure. If business had been conducted in that kind of above board fashion then the information contained in this letter would have been presented that evening to the Board, rather than in this week’s newspapers, but apparently that was not the objective.
The question that must be asked is whether or not the Colonial Beach School Board is going to be allowed to turn into a Machiavellian institution where the end results justify the means and where civil liberties are thrown out the window.
I would hope not.
Sincerely,
Anne Congdon
|
|
|
What about Westmoreland’s noise ordinance? |
|
To the Editor:
Did you know Westmoreland County hired a noise consultant from Pennsylvania to do a “Gun Range Evaluation and Recommendations” on the O’Gara site. The results were very interesting.
The first paragraph begins “Gunfire noise for distances less than a mile is likely to be mildly objectionable to very objectionable for the average reasonable person living in the surrounding community. ... Gunfire of a class will be louder and even more objectionable than the noise that was observed during our controlled tests using well spaced single shots of .223 cal and 9 mm at distances of about 2500 feet.”
Furthermore, “If training includes full auto and/or three burst mode, intrusive noise will be louder and more objectionable, especially when students are firing simultaneously.”
The first recommendation reads: “If immediate conditional approval is to be given to O’Gara, they must be required to implement more aggressive noise controls.” The report goes on to say “We recommend that aggressive noise controls be used to reduce the gunfire noise of the commercial for profit gun range and all related operations of the O’Gara Group to peak and maximum levels to be prescribed by Westmoreland County. Controls must protect all residents such that the noise would not be objectionable to a reasonable person living in the community at any distance from the range. Consideration should be given to zoning type and time of day when setting limits for the quiet residential and rural area surrounding the proposed gun range.”
As a result of the above study, can we assume our county officials will be implementing these recommendations before they approve Phase 1B of the O’Gara site plan? Can we also assume that they will reject the section of the O’Gara site plan that allows them to shoot up to .40 cal weapons until 11:59 p.m.? If these assumptions are correct, then I, for one, would say whatever the cost of this study, it is well worth it to the taxpayers who are paying for it.
Margaret Quinn
Mt. Holly
|
|
Letters to the Editor - Sept. 9, 2009 |
|
To the Editor:
Not long ago I sent the following letter to our members of Congress in Washington:
21st Century Citizens Bill of Rights for Congress
1. Senator and Representatives alike are elected to serve us, the people, as honorable and humble stewards of the public trust.
2. Any submitted bill before subject to a vote must be read in good faith in its entirety ending with some sense of understanding; hence, no insulting gamesmanship through use of a speed reader will be allowed, ever.
3. All pay raises by Congress voting “for” themselves is a conflict of interest. Hence, in future we the people will choose a Congressional pay advocate who will decide when and what increase, if any, is warranted.
4. A “want” is not a judicious need; learn to know the difference.
5. Air Force One is not some national toy to be used for media location staging; its use and deployment are not cheap; there is technology available called teleconferencing.
|
|
|
Letters to the Editor - Sept. 2, 2009 |
|
To the Editor:
Too many folk have got their panties in a bunch for no good reason.
Future (maybe not next month) WMC Bosses meetings will be videoed if you bring your camera. If not in the courtroom, then elsewhere.
For a fact, the “old” Bosses did not want to be videotaped. When I asked them, four years ago, to have their meetings videotaped, they had several reasons to deny my request. My only memory is that Woody Hynson said that members would play to the camera. Do they not play to the observers and the press? I would not have to resort to memory if these meetings had been recorded. I was,of course, ignored as usual.
Making the same request to the School Board elicited the comment by Dr. Wallace (at the time not chairman) that nothing could be more boring than their meetings. Perhaps, but if I wanted to look back at a meeting where they decided how to spend the bulk of my local tax dollars, I think I should have that right. If I could just have had that opportunity, would my memory be trumped by the tape?
Unfortunately, Bob Quinn (Westmoreland resident) and the WECOUNT folk were not in the county at the time. At least it seemed that way. I was by myself as usual.
To be fair, the “new” Bosses have never been formally asked to allow cameras. They were recently ambushed by folk who previously had no interest in county affairs. Ever play “Gotcha”? The reaction was reactionary, as it should have been. Did anyone approach their supervisor to explain why 200 years of past practice should be altered? If so, contact this newspaper and put your name on this short list.
My guess is that the three “new” supervisors will immediately agree to videotaping. If not, then you vote them out. It makes no difference if the two old Supervisors agree or not. They had their chance to be relevant. They blew it. I expect them to repent.
To wrap this up, W&L will get their new concession stand and a field house, (but not before the first game), all for far less than the $80,000 Superintendent Fogliani requested for the concession stand alone. Why does our elected SB allow this sort of craziness? It calls their competence or oversight into question. SB, if I am off base, tell me.
What is with this county? Parents and elected officials alike allow W&L to go without adequate facilities. Folks, it just ain’t that hard to do the right thing! Wake up Westmoreland County! We can’t let George do it! He left two centuries ago!
“Butch” Foutz
Oak Grove
|
|
Letters to the Editor - August 19, 2009 |
|
Letter to the Editor:
In reviewing the site plans submitted by O’Gara to Westmoreland County, I noticed two things that will have a direct impact on the safety of local residents and the health of possibly the entire Northern Neck and beyond.
The first is that there will be no fences restricting site access to the O’Gara facility. Only signs will be posted. Well, I suspect children haven’t changed so much since I was one, so they will undoubtedly be attracted to the site to watch the guys firing guns and racing and crashing cars. What could be more fun! When I was a boy, even the fence around a site housing old German and Japanese WWII aircraft failed to deter us. Equally troubling is that the family dog might wander into the site chasing a rabbit since he can’t read signs. What happens when yours is shot or blown-up? Will it be your child who is devastated when a wounded pet drags himself back home or never comes home?
|
|
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next > End >> |
|
Page 3 of 5 |
|
|
I think that really SUCKS< Even Thou-The Cem...
