LESSER OF TWO EVILS?

Mayoral Candidate Trent Williams

In his campaign literature, Trent Williams says, "I've always believed that I could make a difference. I have the vision, passion and personal commitment to make a positive impact on our community." That may be true, but I’ve heard more than one person say they are voting for Trent Williams because he is the lesser of two evils. Lee Scott’s position is there is only one evil person in the race and it’s Trent Williams. I also know a few conservatives who know Williams better than I do who say he will be no improvement over Bauer or Kalb. However, on the basis of what I’ve seen of Kalb, I have to strongly disagree with Lee Scott’s endorsement of him, but Scott was right about Tim Loper from the start, so he could turn out to be right about Williams. To help me and others who might not know much about Williams, I arranged to interview him at his office on the Thursday before the Nov. 8 election.


Interview of Trent Williams, 3 Nov. 2005


Q. The relatively few voters I’ve talked to about your candidacy are in general agreement that what concerns them about you is not whether you are honest and trustworthy but whether you have enough backbone, whether you will be strong and decisive enough for the job. How do you respond to those concerns?

A STRUGGLE

A. Of course I don’t agree with that. I think I’ll be a strong mayor as I’ve been a strong auditor. However, I do think I know how they might have formed that opinion. And that is because – you know I’ve been auditor for six years and over that time – let’s say over the first four years – it was a struggle. It was a struggle being beat down by the mayor that was in office at that time, Mayor Bauer, on many different issues, as well as not having the support of the city council in simply trying to do my job . . . and it became sort of a popularity contest, or just an ongoing battle, that didn’t look like it would have a favorable outcome from [the office of the auditor’s] point of view . . . My proposals I would say would be overlooked or not taken seriously. It got to the point where anything I would try to say was done in vain and a feeling of “Why try anymore?” If [the city ] council is not going to consider the point of view I’m going to give them, it’s like I’m not effective because I’m having a boot put on me. It’s like, “Be quiet and do your job.”

Q. Could you be more specific?

A. Mayor Bauer and some members of council tried to downsize my office staff and outsource payrolling. My office was the only city office they tried to downsize, and they could do that because employees in the auditor’s office were not unionized. When unionized city employees got raises, employees in the auditor’s office did not. The employees later formed their own union, which gave them some job protection and raises like everybody else.

Q. Did you ever find a way to express your disappointment and frustration during that period, publicly?

A. As I said, I was much stronger in the beginning, but then I saw that approach wasn’t working, and I become a little bit ineffective over being swept under the rug and being taken advantage of. It used to seem to me that I was sitting in my chair against the other seven people sitting at the table. No one else out of the audience would agree with me or take my side on an issue. Therefore I was easily made to be frustrated by not being taken seriously. But what I think really built my confidence and helped me make a stronger stand for things was when people would actually support what I would say. And that came from an increased interest and an increased number of people that actually came to the city council meetings, and I didn’t feel like I was alone any more. I really appreciated the number of people who began coming to the city council meetings.

Q. So there was nobody on the city council or in the city government who you felt was an ally of yours during that period?

A. Exactly. I felt at that time because of so many issues that were being put against me and it was just a battle between my office and Mayor Bauer’s office and some members of the city council. There’s a long history of friction between the auditor’s office and city council. . . . I feel much more confident now that I have allies on the council – and it’s not so much a question of allies as support and interest of people there agreeing with things [I] point out.


Trent Williams answering my questions in his office

WILLIAMS VS. KALB

Q. Why should anyone vote for you rather than acting Mayor Kalb?

A. I feel I have a good reputation for honesty and integrity . . . and I feel people are somewhat comfortable with the job I’ve done [as auditor] for the last six years. I’ve been elected twice by a large margin – nearly 70% both times that I’ve won the election.

Q. In the mayoral primary, where did you finish?

A. Second. About a hundred votes behind Jim [Kalb]. And regarding that, with seven candidates, I felt that, or was hoping anyway, that the people who voted for Jim were voting for him and the rest were voting against him. I hope that’s the way it works out this time and that I pick up a lot of the votes for the other candidates in the primary.

Q. What has Kalb done or not done as mayor that you don’t agree with?

A. I think Kalb has tended to go along with some of the former administration’s policies instead of taking a step away from that administration’s philosophy. For example, the plan was for the former council and the former administration to go into the Marting’s building with a tax on the property owners for renovating the Marting’s building. That was the plan. (Of course, the referendum is now in place that will stop that.) And guess what? The plan of the current council and administration is also to continue the former administration’s plan – to continue to go in and renovate the Marting’s building and finance it through putting the same property tax on the back of the property taxpayers. Instead of looking first not at where we are going to put the building but looking for other alternatives, other ways, to pay for wherever and whatever we do. I’d like to see us look into grants and other types of taxes or fees that might replace putting the burden on the property taxpayer. I hope we’re able to bring in some type of mall or upscale retail development. And if we do bring that into the city of Portsmouth, which is one thing I really want to look into and pursue aggressively, we could look at making an agreement with the county government to get a share of the increased sales tax that would come from any retail development.

REVENUE SHARING

If the city government is going to bring in a retail development into the city of Portsmouth, I think it would be fair for the city to share – I don’t mean to take the entire 7% payoff that would be generated by that – but even a half percent or just something minimally to help offset a new or renovated building, that’s for sure. If you look around this place [the Municipal building] – and I’m sure you have – that could help offset and instead of putting it on the property taxpayer’s back, that [half-percent] could just come from the increased supplemental sales tax.

Q. Does the county get all of that 7 percent?

A. No. They get 1 and one-half percent, and 5 percent goes to the state. The other 1 and one-half percent goes – no, that would be 7, that would be 5 and 2.

Q. 5 percent to the city?

A. 5 percent to the county.

Q. I’m confused. 5 percent to the county?

A. [I] take that back. It was 7 and one-half percent, wasn’t it?

Q. I’m not sure.

A. Off the top of my head, it’s hard to remember. But now I remember. It was increased to 7 and one-half [percent] and with the state’s new budget they dropped that half percent. The additional 1 percent— OK, 6 percent goes to the state and 1 percent goes to the county. I believe that’s the formula right now.

Q. And the formula doesn’t include the city in that?

A. Not at all.

Q. And is that typical throughout Ohio?

A. Yes. Sales tax typically goes to the county, income tax is brought in by the city, and property tax – there’s a formula that splits up that between the county, city, and any villages, townships, and schools.

MARTING’S REFERENDUM

The editor of the Portsmouth Daily Times has called the upcoming referendum on the Marting’s building “ridiculous.” What is your view?

A. How can it be ridiculous if so many people are so divided on it? I may be wrong, but I think the majority [of voters] are not going to want to put in many millions of dollars – we’re talking in the 4, 5, 6, even 7 million dollar range. Are we going to take many millions of dollars to renovate a building, which we’re going to have high upkeep and maintenance on, or are we going to put a similar amount, or maybe even more, into a newly constructed building that taxpayers will be much more willing and happier to pay taxes for knowing they are paying for a new state-of-the-art investment that’s going to last for decades? I don’t agree [that the referendum on Marting’s] is ridiculous. . . . I want to see happen what the citizens of Portsmouth want to happen and what taxpayers are willing to pay for. And I think they don’t want to pay for the renovation of the Marting’s building. I think that’s been proven. The three recalls that we’ve had [of Mayor Bauer and councilwomen Sydnor and Caudill] I think were greatly related to those individuals’ support of renovating the Marting’s building. . . . I would like to see us, first, vigorously pursue some type of retail development for that building. That’s what I intend to do. I may be just dreaming a little here, but I think there can be interest, if we’re proactive, in pursuing the interest in the building. . . . That’s the primary first thing the building should be used for. If it eventually comes to where we can’t find a suitable tenant for the building, I think the taxpayers are going to be most happy with razing the building and putting in something that’s going to be suitable to our needs on that site.

NEAL HATCHER

Q. The real estate developer Neal Hatcher is one of the most controversial figures in Portsmouth. Do you have any criticisms of the city government’s relationship with Hatcher?

A. I think it was unfortunate that it was the city that had to do the deal. I’d like to have seen it just a deal between the college and Neal. I don’t understand why the city was forced to become involved with it. . . . I’m not against and am very much in favor of increasing the enrollment of Shawnee State University, which is one of the greatest assets in this community. And I think the dorms are beautiful, and I think that’s one of the reasons for the increase in enrollment for Shawnee State.

But two things I don’t agree with, in any case. One, as I said, is that if eminent domain was going to be used, it should have been a state institution, meaning Shawnee State, to use the power of eminent domain instead of forcing the city, or having the city become involved. And second, I don’t think eminent domain should be used for private development. Now, with that said, Neal is doing something. And I respect that. He’s trying to make improvements. But you have to play by the rules, and ultimately I think most people would agree that even though the buildings he is going to put up over there are going to be quite an asset to the town and to the university, you still can’t bypass the rules just because the ends justify the means.

NO TRUST

Q. Is there anything that I haven’t touched on that you would like to say before we end this interview?

A. Yes. To expand on your earlier question, “Why should someone vote for Trent Willliams for mayor?” I think that I can help develop the trust in city government that is going to be required for us to do anything. What I mean by that is we don’t have now a level of trust between the administration and council and its constituents. And when there’s not that trust there, it tends to bring any little thing that’s done into question. What I would like to be able to help with is to kind of start over. See that things are done above-board, see that things are done openly, hopefully with input from citizens. As I said before, this is not about what I want. This is about what I think everyone in the city will benefit from. What I’ve been working on is developing an advisory panel of community members. . . . Leaders and just regular people . . . from all the key players that make up the development of the city, to come together, not necessarily on a monthly or strict schedule basis, but on an as-needed-basis, to advise me on the problems that we have in the city and what solutions are there to those problems and how can we achieve those solutions.

NO PLAN, NO DIRECTION

Another big problem, besides the trust issue, is that we have no plan. We have no direction right now. There’s nothing we can pick up and put in front of us and say, “This is the direction we’re hoping to go in and here’s how we’re going to get there.” We need a strategic plan and a marketing plan. . . . Right now I don’t think there’s any reason to look at Portsmouth, because there’s no one coming to you and saying why you should look at Portsmouth. . . . They are not going to come to us if twenty other cities are already hot on their tails to get them to come there. Why would they even look at us?

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS

Q. Could you give me a rough idea of how much you’ve been able to put into your campaign?

A. Financially, you mean? I think it’s in the $5000 dollar range. . . .

Q. I know from experience, on the basis of the Bauer recall campaign, that the number of signs, and even the amount of money collected, is not necessarily the most important thing.

A. Exactly. . . . There was a lot more money put in the “Keep Bauer Campaign” than in the “Recall Bauer Campaign.” A tremendous, a vast difference. But the vote was what, 65% for recall?

Q. About that [it was 64%]. In looking over your campaign contributions, I notice $2500 from the Scioto County Republican Committee. Since you have about $5000 in contributions to this point, $2500 is a major donation, about half of what you’ve raised. My question is, in view of the putative non-partisan character of city elections, is such a large contribution unusual? Assuming Kalb is a Democrat, does he have a large contribution from a corresponding Democratic committee?

A. No, he doesn’t, not according to the latest records. But three unions have contributed somewhere between $1,200 and $1,500 dollars to Kalb. [Andrew Feight says four unions contributed a total of $2000 to Kalb’s campaign.] And the Scioto County Republican Committee has made $2,500 contributions to Republican candidates in the past, not just for me. I wish I had started fundraising earlier, and raised maybe $10,000 dollars, so the political contribution wouldn’t be such a substantial percentage. But I got a late start.

Q. Thank you for answering these questions.








Contributions Received for Trent Williams' campaign

Scioto County Republican Comm. >>>>>>>>>>>>>$2,500
Loan from unspecified source>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1,240
Fundraising Event 10/13/05 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>$515
Fundraising Event 10/15/05 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>$225
DeSimone, Shane. Portsmouth. In-Kind >>>>>>>>>$250
Hempill, Barry. Portsmouth. In-Kind >>>>>>>>>>>$200
Sherman, Faye. Portsmouth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $200
Cade, Douglas E. Haverhill >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $100
Williams, Melvin D. Franklin Furnace >>>>>>>>>> $100
Wheeler, Saundra K. Portsmouth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>$100
McFarland, Lynn A. Portsmouth >>>>>>>>>>>>>> $100
Lopez, Ronald, L. Portsmouth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $100
Scott, Thomas A. Portsmouth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $100
Holsinger, Robert J. Wheelersburg >>>>>>>>>>>> $100
Knauff, Lisa. West Portsmouth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>$75
Chamberlin, Robert. Wheelersburg >>>>>>>>>>>>>$50
McNelly, Sharon. Portsmouth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>$50
Duzan,Gary. Portsmouth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $50
Scott, Bridget L. Portsmouth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $50
Trimble, Suzanne. Waverly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>$50
Singleton, Karnella. Portsmouth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>$50
Sherman-Bias, Sally J. Portsmouth >>>>>>>>>>>>> $50
Wampler, Carol, L. Portsmouth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>$50
Harcha, Rachel, A. Stout >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>$50
Rodeheffer, Lynne, S. Portsmouth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>$50
Reynolds, Klara, B. Lucasville >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>$50
Kegley, Lindsey, B. Portsmouth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>$50

Out-of-Date Rape

Convicted sexual predator Zane Loper


In a brief report on the trail of tears of a child who was raped by Zane Douglas Loper, a Scioto County Board Mental Retardation Developmental Disabilities (SCBMRDD) employee, Teresa Mollette wrote with an understandable sense of outrage, “It appears this child who was first raped while in the care of MRDD is now being raped for a second time by her own lawyer, Stan Bender, and the legal system . . .”

The SCBMR/DD is the Portsmouth-based satellite of the Ohio Department of Mental Retardation Developmental Disabilities, a state agency that has the following mission statement: “The mission of the Ohio Department of MR/DD is continuous improvement of the quality of life for Ohio's citizens with developmental disabilities and their families.” The current PR slogan of the Portsmouth MRDD is “Teamwork Makes the Dream Work.” Given SCBMR/DD’s recent nightmarish history, I think such a slogan is at best premature and at worst offensive. If a slogan is necessary, I suggest “MRDD Care Makes the Nightmare.”

Having talked to the child’s mother, Denise Yates, and having read disturbing and depressing legal material related to the rape case, I want to provide some background information to substantiate Teresa Mollette’s charge of a sexual rape being followed by a legal rape. The text of her charge and a distorted photo of the child in question can be found at (http://portsmouthcitizens.info/blog/?page_id=29).

The raped child, Denise Yates’ daughter, was born on April 16, 1991. When she was about three years old, she was diagnosed as being retarded. In 1997, her mother enrolled her in SCBMR/DD’s Vern Riffe School. It was a fateful enrollment, for in 1993 SCBMR/DD had hired Zane Douglas Loper as a teacher’s aide at the Verne Riffe school even though Loper was already known to have been sexually abusing children. Prosecutors would later charge that Loper’s sexual abuse of children had begun as early as 1984, almost ten years before he was hired at the Vern Riffe School. Denise Yates’ attorneys later formally charged that the “Defendants [SCBMR/DD, Superintendent Oakley, and Riffe School Principal Miller] actually and constructively knew of information which indicated that Loper had engaged in prior unlawful sexual activity with children placed under his care and Defendents knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that if that information was not investigated Loper would continue to molest children in his position at the Vern Riffe School.”

Unlike other mothers of retarded Riffe School children who had been Loper’s victims, Denise Yates dared to accuse Loper of preying upon children while he was employed by MRDD at the Riffe School. She would pay a price for being so outspoken about the crime committed against her daughter. But if she had not publicly protested about Loper and if John Welton had not reported on the scandalous mismanagement at MRDD in the Shawnee Sentinel, possibly nothing would have come to light. Certainly if we waited for the Portsmouth Daily Times to do the kind of investigative journalism John Welton did, we would be waiting from here to eternity.

Welton reported that Superintendent Oakley knew, or should have known, that Loper, a former Shawnee State student, was a deeply troubled young man whose molestation of children at other venues was no secret in Portsmouth and West Portsmouth. In an online Sentinel story dated 15 July 2003, Welton wrote, “Portsmouth Police Officers met with the Sentinel last night and stated that rumors continue that the Superintendent of MRDD, John Oakley, had been made aware of Loper’s prior allegations of molestation of children in the care of numerous county agencies, including Scioto County Children’s Services and Shawnee Mental Health. Oakley still hired Loper after being warned that Loper posed a danger to the children at MRDD.”

Welton believed Loper’s family and political connections got him the job, because Oakely hired Loper as a favor to Loper’s stepfather, Todd Miller, a captain in the Scioto County sheriff’s office. If true, that would not be surprising, for at least some hires at public agencies in city and county agencies are based more on who those hired are related to or friends with rather than on their qualifications.

Oakley later claimed that MRDD had investigated Yates’ charges and found them to be without merit. But, under pressure, Loper resigned from MRDD in August 1998. That he was forced to resign was apparent when he took legal action against MRDD for his severance. Then, surprisingly, in spite of the troubles he had had at MRDD, and in spite of his reputation as a pedophile, Loper was hired as a part-time policeman in Peebles, Ohio, a small town in Adams Country. Was this another instance of a criminally inclined individual benefiting from political connections? If so, those connections could only do so much. Loper was subsequently arrested on 16 counts, including raping a child under 13 and possessing child pornography. He was charged with having raped Yates’ daughter a number of times in 1998, when she was seven. If convicted, Loper would have faced life imprisonment, but through plea bargaining he was allowed, on 7 May 2002 to plead guilty to the lesser charge of 5 counts of Gross Sexual Imposition. He received an 18 years-6 months sentence. Because he was classified as a sexual predator, he had to serve his terms consecutively.

In a public statement dated 1 August 2003, Superintendent Oakley wrote that though Loper had been convicted, it had not been proven that his “wrongdoing,” one of several euphemisms Oakley used to refer to Loper’s heinous crimes, “that no such wrongdoing occurred during his work time as an employee of the Board.” Since there was no trial, all that Loper did and when and where he did it will probably never be known. But by “during his work time,” Oakley implied Loper’s crimes were extracurricular, that none of them of had occurred during the work day at the Riffe School. Loper worked at the school from 1993 to 1998, and in all those years, Oakley implied, he had not molested children while at the school. If Loper had molested Yates’ daughter, Oakley suggested, it was only when he was “babysitting” her for her mother.

In a 2004 deposition, Denise Yates made it clear, under oath, that Loper had never babysat for her, and Loper and she had never dated, which was another of the rumors that were circulating, possibly to try to discredit her testimony and make her appear an unfit mother. Denise Yates said, under oath, that her daughter described two molestations by Loper when they were alone in the Riffe School bathroom. Denise Yates said in sworn testimony, “She [Yates’ six-year-old daughter] had talked about him [Loper] taking her in the bathroom another time and making him perform – making her perform – oral sex on him and making her eat what came out of – as a result” (Page 98 of deposition). On a Riffe School overnight camp-out, Loper, according to more than one observer, had slept alone in a tent with Yates’ daughter and another little girl. During the night, Yates’ daughter had gone out with Loper to use the bathroom, but afterwards, she said, “he wouldn’t let her put her pants back on and he made her lay on the ground and he rubbed himself on her private and he took his hand and rubbed her private and then used his mouth and told her not to tell anybody, that it was their secret, that some day he was going to marry her and she would be his wife, and that’s what husbands and wives do” (Page 92). On another occasion in another location, Loper was alleged to have instructed those same two little girls how to have lesbian sex with each other.

Denise Yates later decided to file suit against MRDD and Superintendent John Oakley and Principal Tony Miller, but based on what she knew about Portsmouth politics, she had decided it would be unwise to hire any Portsmouth lawyer to represent her. She knew that because of politics in Portsmouth, local lawyers are not likely to even want to take a case if it meant having to take on any of the over-privileged of Portsmouth or of suing any of the public agencies on which Portsmouth’s pork-supported economy are dependent. Yates engaged a Chillicothe attorney, but he turned around and engaged a Portsmouth attorney, Stanley Bender, who represents Clayton Johnson in the Marting mess, as his associate. What she feared about Portsmouth lawyers came to pass. Bender and her Chillicothe attorney, her own lawyers, succeeded in taking away her rights as her daughter’s legal guardian, claiming she is too emotional and cannot be “objective.” In a letter to Yates (30 Aug. 2005), Bender wrote, “Your obvious disgust with MRDD and its employees over the way your daughter and you were treated is understandable. However, Tom [Spetnagel] and I believe you are allowing this to cloud your objectivity.” If it was a father, a male, who was refusing to settle, would he be accused of having his objectivity clouded, of his being too emotional? Denise Yates is a professional, with a career in law enforcement herself and a mind of her own. She doesn’t need to be patronized by those in suits and robes at the County Courthouse. In any event, Probate judge Kirsch appointed a third Portsmouth lawyer to be the child’s ad litem legal guardian.

What is behind all this legal maneuvering? Ms. Yates declined to accept an offer from the other side to settle. Yates made the judgment that the offer was insufficient considering how much of it would be taken by lawyers in contingency fees. It is not a question of how much Denise Yates herself will get, because she will get nothing. The statute of limitations ran out for her some time ago. Whatever money her daughter is awarded would be put in a trust fund.

Ms. Yates’ lawyers want to settle now. One of the reasons Bender gave for settling now was that as more time goes by the heinousness of Loper’s crimes and of the criminality of MRDD’s neglect are being forgotten. “The longer this [case] continues,” he argued in his letter to her, “the more the notoriety of these events subsides. In other words, our claim loses value” (30 Aug. 2005). Portsmouth’s only daily newspaper has priorities that place support of Clayton Johnson and the Marting Foundation and the denigration of the reform movement much higher than justice for a mother and her raped child. With cover-up/kiss-ass journalism, the shelf-life of a story that justifies the Marting’s sale lasts as long as is necessary and a story that protects the over-privileged of Portsmouth never “loses value,” but the story of the sexual and legal rape of a child is out-of-date rape.

Downtown

Chillicothe St. at rush hour, 2005

Though it would be a challenge to say exactly what its boundaries are, where it begins and where it ends, there is a downtown Portsmouth. But the downtown Portsmouth of today is not the downtown Portsmouth of a hundred or even fifty years ago. The downtown Portsmouth of a hundred years ago is dead. Fifty years ago, in downtown Portsmouth, arteriosclerosis was already beginning to set in. Twenty-five years ago, at the time of the shopping mall scam, it was more like rigor mortis. The Glockners got out of the hardware business and got out of downtown and into the outskirts years ago, which was why their auto dealership became one of the few success stories in Portsmouth. If only Marting's had done the same. How many more antiques/junk shops can downtown accommodate? Chillicothe street, which has trouble handling what little traffic there is now, will be constipated with the additional traffic brought by the new bridge – it won’t take much traffic to do that – and there is little parking space to provide relief.

Certain people, some in good faith, others in bad, are claiming that downtown Portsmouth can be resuscitated, if not born again, as a shopping and business center. That is a very doubtful proposition. In the last half century, drastic changes have taken place in where and in the way people shop, including on the internet, as well as the way in which they get around, changes that almost guarantee that the bustling prosperous downtown Portsmouth of the past is going to remain a thing of the past. If anything is going to revive downtown Portsmouth, it is not going to be nostalgia.

I have nothing against downtowns. On the contrary. I am of a generation and from a class (blue-collar) for whom downtown was a wonderfully defining experience. I love downtowns and feel lucky for having been too old to have been part of a later mall generation. How hard it must be for anyone to outgrow the experience of having been a mall rat. My favorite floodwall mural is the one of Chillicothe St. on a Saturday night in the mid-1940s. I would like to be able to step into that mural and go back in time. “Downtown” is one of my favorite ballads, especially when belted out by Petula Clark. But I know the difference between fantasy and reality, between the past and the present.


Mural of Chillicothe Street, Saturday night, 1940s

The long delayed grand new U. S. Grant bridge replacement is not going to change the obsolescence of downtown Portsmouth anymore than the picturesque old U.S. Grant Bridge did. The new bridge is a striking structure, a triumph of engineering, but it is a bridge to the past, which is to say it is a bridge to Portsmouth’s downtown. The new bridge is not nearly as questionable as that so-called “bridge to nowhere,” the $941 million bridge from the Alaskan mainland to Ketchican (pop. 8000) on the island of Gravina, but the $38 million (and counting) Portsmouth bridge is another expensive link in the chain of American transportation pork. The Carl Perkins Bridge, about two miles down the Ohio River, enables cars and trucks to avoid downtown Portsmouth. What drivers wanting to go north on Route 23 will take the new Portsmouth bridge and negotiate the ten or so traffic lights on the short stretch of Chillicothe Street, when they can go two miles south to the Carl Perkins Bridge and avoid downtown Portsmouth?


$38 Million Bridge to the Past

It was hoped that a new university would revive downtown Portsmouth. Shawnee State has been downtown for almost twenty years, but it has not revived downtown Portsmouth. There are those who say gambling casinos could revive downtown Portsmouth, but that would not be the downtown of the past. Portsmouth may already have more prostitutes per capita than any city in Ohio, and gambling would only increase their numbers. Downtown gambling casinos would create a hooker’s heaven. And as for political prostitutes, Portsmouth already has enough of those, and gambling gravy would only increase their numbers.

The “downtown” mentality, the view that the city’s recovery must be focused on and begin in downtown, is one of the things holding the city back. The “downtown” mentality and, specifically, treating the Marting’s as a sacred cow is one of the things that led to the Marting’s scandal. Do our over-privileged know the difference between a sacred cow and mad cow? Portsmouth’s downtown is decrepit, and trying to recycle century-old commercial structures like Marting’s as public buildings while destroying the historically significant public-use buildings, such as the N&W railroad terminal and the Municipal Building, reflects Portsmouth’s lack not just of architectural conscience but of architectural consciousness. Patriotism, Samuel Johnson said, is the last refuge of a scoundrel, but in Portsmouth downtown is. The Marting building is the crown jewel of the downtown con.

What is to be done? I say let the police and the courts defend the constitutional rights of prostitutes to operate downtown as they do their right to operate in the John St. area, and I say let Neal Hatcher do his eminent domaining in downtown Portsmouth, and together, the prostitutes and the developer, might do for downtown Portsmouth what they did for the John St. area, which is to say level it. That is not the worst thing that could happen.

*********
Postscript: A blogger in Cincinnati has been tracking pork in Portsmouth in a special series. I recommend the series, and in particular the most recent installment. Click on http://porkopolis.blogspot.com/2005/04/pork-in-portsmouth-part-5.html

Prostitution Culture

Naked Truths

Perhaps reacting to criticism that it does not do investigative reporting, that it leaves that to the Shawnee Sentinel while it masters the art of cover-up journalism, the Portsmouth Daily Times ran a four-part series on prostitution in Portsmouth by staff writer Phyllis Noah. The title of the series was “Naked Truths: the Story Behind Portsmouth’s Prostitution Culture.” Wow!

Let the hooker who is without sin write the first 4-part series on Portsmouth’s prostitution culture. For a reporter on the Daily Times to write an expose of Portsmouth’s prostitution culture is like Winona Ryder writing on the sins of shoplifting or Monica Lewinsky on the evils of oral sex.

There is a limited definition of prostitution, which is selling one’s body for money, and a general meaning, which is selling one’s soul for an unworthy cause or corrupt group. The phrase “prostitution culture” suggests something more than hookers on John St. It suggests the more general definition of prostitution. Given its notoriety and conspicuousness, prostitution is the best metaphor for the political culture of Portsmouth, and I have used that metaphor a number of times in this blog.

Perhaps to bolster flagging circulation, the Daily Times marketed the 4-part series by calling it in a touch of tabloid titillation “The Naked Truth.” It sounds like the front page not of the Portsmouth Daily Times but of the New York Daily News. Naked? You would no more want to see the prostitutes of Portsmouth naked than you would want to see former councilwoman Carol Caudill, the Sassy Lassie of the Internet, as the centerfold in Playboy Magazine. Truth? The Daily Times will do everything it can to increase its sclerotic circulation except tell the truth about Portsmouth’s “prostitution culture.” The prostitute culture of Portsmouth consists of far more than the hookers of John St. The Daily Times fears the truth the way Dracula does the cross because telling the truth about Portsmouth’s prostitute culture would mean ending its role as the prostitute to the over-privileged Johns who control the city. The over-privileged of Portsmouth turn as many tricks as the prostitutes on John St., but they do it in the name of philanthropy and public service.

The Master Plan: The Worse the Better

The way the master plan for Portsmouth works, the worse things get in the city and the more blighted it becomes, the better it is for the over-privileged who profit from the pork that the city becomes eligible for. As shown on 3rd St., where Hatcher’s abated student dormitories were built, the temptation to declare healthy streets and neighborhoods blighted is too hard to resist when millions of dollars of pork and profits can be accumulated. One of the economic side benefits of prostitution in Portsmouth is that it provides public sector employment for those whose jobs are to deal with the many streetwalkers. It is another illustration of the rule that where Portsmouth is concerned, the worse things get the more public funds will be pumped into the city. The economy of Portsmouth relies heavily on the public funds that can be appropriated to incarcerate criminals, house addicted prostitutes and their children, house the aged and college students, and welcome tourists and, possibly, gamblers.

There is precious little about prostitutes in the series “The Naked Truth” and a lot about drugs and drug counselors and drug authorities. The message of the series is that Portsmouth’s prostitution problem is really a drug problem. Of the dozen people Noah interviewed, few of them were prostitutes, and those few were discussed in relation to drugs. Honesty in advertising requires that if you are going to run a 4-part series on drugs that you call it a four-part series on drugs, and not try to pruriently imply it has anything to do with nakedness.

Going in Circles

If you explain the prevalence of prostitution in Portsmouth by drugs, how do you explain the prevalence of drugs in Portsmouth? Noah’s explanation is that prostitution is a serious problem because of drugs. What Noah offers is not an explanation but an excuse of why there is so much prostitution in Portsmouth. But as Municipal Judge Schisler told Noah, the drug problem is no worse in Portsmouth than elsewhere. If that’s the case, then why is there so much more prostitution in Portsmouth? Drugs do not explain why Portsmouth is, per capita, the prostitution capital of Ohio. To explain Portsmouth prostitution by drugs and Portsmouth drugs by prostitution is to go in circles.

Prostitution is called the world’s oldest profession because it has been around for thousands of years, thousands of years before there was a drug culture. The economic, social and psychological reasons for prostitution – the sexist attitude toward women, the chronic lack of employment in this area, the failures of the public education system, the breakdown of the family, the salaciousness of popular culture – the Daily Times does not consider these among the causes of prostitution. Everything is attributed to drugs, a neat and simple explanation that implies drug dealers are the cause of prostitution.

Are there no other culprits than shadowy drug dealers? What about real estate developers? Prostitutes play an important role in Portsmouth “redevelopment.” They accelerate the deterioration of declining neighborhoods. Along with eminent domain, they spell doom for neighborhoods in which they are allowed to exercise their constitutional rights. They are already beginning to drift away from the bulldozed John St., which no longer offers much cover for johns or prostitutes. A lonely tree is all that is left for them for soliciting. How many hookers can one tree provide shade for? Hookers are drifting further and further into surrounding neighborhoods, neighborhoods where their constitutional rights are not likely to be as protected as they were on John St. About all that’s left standing on John St. is that tree under which smoking prostitutes wait for Johns. Tobacco dwarfs all other drug problems in the U.S., but because it is legal and highly profitable the news media focus on other drugs.

I first began talking to people in the John St. area several years ago. They were reluctant to talk to a stranger, because they feared that they would be targeted for retaliation by the police and the powers-that-be. Many residents had moved out of the area by that time because prostitutes and drug-dealers had moved in, making life impossible for ordinary families. Count on it, there will be near zero tolerance for prostitution and zero support for constitutional rights in the John St. area once ground is broken there for Neal Hatcher’s shopping mall.

One resident of John St. told me several years ago that it appeared to him the police and city officials were turning a blind eye to the prostitution and drug-dealing in that neighborhood because it served developer Neal Hatcher’s purposes. Drugs and prostitutes were being ignored, this resident suspected, because their activities supported Hatcher by driving down property values and driving out residents. If this resident had expressed his views to a Daily Times reporter, I doubt they would have gotten into its pages. When it comes to these kinds of “naked truths” about the over-privileged of Portsmouth, or about the shenanigans of the SOGP, or SSU, or the SOMC, or its other clients, the Daily Times prefers a cover-up, or at best one side of the story.

Exploiting Prostitutes by Protecting Them

The respect that law enforcement officials have for the constitutional rights of the prostitutes of Portsmouth, as reported in the 4-part series, is nothing short of astonishing. Who would have thought that the Portsmouth police department and the local courts were such hotbeds of civil libertarians? If only the police and city officials were as determined to protect the constitutional rights of those who attempt to exercise the right of free speech at city council meetings where citizens are ejected by the dictatorial president of the city council if they so much as mention the name of a particular councilman or a particular developer or a particular lawyer. If only they were as determined to protect the rights of those who attempt to exercise their right to recall elected officials, and of those who offer themselves as candidates in recall elections, as they do to felons who are advised of their right to run for and hold public office by the city clerk and the city solicitor, even when those rights are reportedly misrepresented and misinterpreted.

If there were a Pulitzer prize for cover-up journalism, for not unearthing local corruption and incompetence, for not exposing Portsmouth's prostitution culture, the Daily Times should have won one by now for reporting like that in “Naked Truth.”

Improper Nouns

Dummy on the City Council





Aeh, JoAnn

Aeh began her political career campaigning for the recall of three honest councilmen back in 1980, and as long-time city clerk she has been obstructing justice and the recall of anybody ever since. She reportedly advised ex-felon Michael Malone (see below) he could run for and hold public office, and she may have been, along with her husband, a member of Ku Klux Klan.



Adelphia Building:

Originally the home of an American Motor Corporation dealer until AMC went out of business. The building was next the rented home of Adelphia Communications until the president and founder of Adelphia was convicted of massive fraud and imprisoned. After Adelphia went bankrupt and reorganized, it moved its Portsmouth office away from the sacred Downtown (see below) to the wrong side of the tracks of the 15th Street Viaduct area (see below). The Marting Foundation (see below) has dictated that the Adelphia Building should be the home of the Portsmouth Police Dept.




Bauer, Gregory:

Mayor of Portsmouth (1998-2004). A failed Portsmouth businessman who began a second career as a Political Prostitute (see below) serving the interests of the over-privileged (see below), Bauer, along with councilwomen Carol Caudill and Ann Sydnor, was recalled from office in June 2004 as a result of the Marting scandal.



Bauer Graphics:

A now defunct business on lower Chillicothe St., in the heart of Portsmouth's dead Downtown (see below), it is owned by former mayor Greg Bauer (see above), who lived high in the loft above Bauer Graphics, behind whose unwashed windows were unwatered potted ferns and an Easter Island-like carved head. When he was recalled in June 2004, Bauer told a reporter Bauer Graphics would reopen, but it has not yet.



Baughman, Howard:

The smarmy president of the Portsmouth City Council and relative of Clayton Johnson, Portsmouth’s Boss Tweedy (see below). Employed at Covert Funiture, Baughman is the chief advocate on the City Council for reviving Portsmouth’s dead Downtown district by moving city employees into a decrepit department store.

Bender, Stanley:

A Portsmouth attorney who is representing the Marting Foundation in its attempt to dictate what the city will do with the money it obtained illegally from the city before it will return any part of that money to the city. Bender is also the lawyer who is attempting to legally deprive one of his own clients, the mother of a child who was raped at the MRDD, of her right to decide what is best for that child.

Boss Tweedy:

One of the nicknames of local lawyer and Portsmouth’s leading deal-maker Clayton Johnson, head of the Marting Foundation.

Building:

Any Portsmouth structure made of wood, brick, or cinderblock that Portsmouth’s over-privileged males feel should be torn down as quickly as possible to the profit of everybody except the owner of the building if he happens to be an African-American.




Caudill, Carol:

The former Ward 3 representative on the Portsmouth City Council who went by the handle “Sassy Lassie” on the Internet, where she advertized herself as a politically conservative 63-year-old divorced "Woman seeking a Man" between the ages of 53-73 and who was at least 5'9" in height, but who could be either married or unmarried. Caudill was recalled from office in 2004 for her role in the Marting scandal and reportedly supported ex-felon Michael Malone as her replacement on the City Council.

Chaos:

What Mayor Bauer and Ward 3 councilwoman Caudill predicted would follow their recall from office.



Downtown Portsmouth:

Pictured above are empty storefronts and an empty Chillicothe St. at 4 PM on a sunny October Tuesday afternoon. The dead Downtown area of Portsmouth is sacred to Portsmouth’s over-privileged because that is where they used to do their Christmas and Easter shopping. The over-privileged and the Political Prostitutes (see below) in the Municipal Building (see below) think no sacrifice is too great and no scam too outrageous to perpetrate on behalf of the Downtown area. The holiest site Downtown is not the Municipal building, the seat of the city government, but the Marting building (see below), the cynosure of shopping and consumerism.



Fifteenth-Street Viaduct:

Also known informally as Shady Plaza, the Fifteenth-Street Viaduct area is the site of one of the scams of the Bauer era. After the Daily Times helped circulate the rumor that it would cost a fortune to clean up toxic contamination on the viaduct site, no one was willing to buy it. According to acting Mayor Kalb, the city could not give it away. Then the property was miraculously decontaminated and the city sold the property for a song to a local developer, who made a bundle by dividing it up and selling lots to others who built movie theaters and eateries on the once supposedly toxic site.



Hatchered House:

Through the threat and occasional use of eminent domain, or “imminent doom”(see below), hatchering is the systematic running down and neglect of property (such as the John St. house above) and the eventual bulldozing of neighborhoods by local developer Neal Hatcher. The most recent example of hatchering is the eminent domaining of the property of Joe Perry, the enterprising young African-American businessman whose rental properties in Hatcherville (see below) will soon bite the dust.



Hatcherville:

A name given by former residents to the 3rd St. area that Neal Hatcher acquired by threats of eminent domain and then bulldozed to build Campus View student dormitories in a sweetheart deal with Shawnee State University in which the university takes most of the risks and Hatcher most of the profits.



Imminent Doom:

"Imminent doom" is the Hatcher variety of “eminent domain.”




John Street:

The bulldozed bombed-out looking Portsmouth neighborhood that is within streetwalking distance of the Municipal building. John Street is where the sexual, as distinct from the political, prostitutes of Portsmouth practice the world’s oldest profession. John Street is the proposed site of a Neal Hatcher shopping center to be called “Hooker Haven.”



Loper, Tim

Dummies used to fill the display windows of Marting’s Department Store. That's what Ward 1 councilman Tim Loper said he had been, a dummy, for supporting the purchase of the Marting building. He had been elected last year because of his stand against the purchase of the Marting building, but then somebody had persuaded him to support the purchase, someone who had played him for a dummy. Loper, whose home was recently sold at a sheriff’s auction and who is rumored to be living outside of Ward 1, has flip-flopped and is again backing the purchase of the Marting building. He is again being played for a dummy.



Marting Building

A one-hundred-year-old leaking decrepit department store that the Political Prostitutes in the Municipal Building have declared the holiest shrine in Portsmouth’s dead “Downtown” district (see entry above). The Marting building is covered by a phony 1950-ish façade, or what architects call a “slip cover,” which is what clever property owners use to hide the run-down condition of an old building.



Marting display window:

In keeping with Marting’s status as a temple of commerce in Portsmouth’s sacred but dead Downtown shopping area, the display windows at Marting’s no longer feature dummies but flags, religious symbols, Hospice, Missing Children, MIA/POW, Ohio Daughters of the Revolution, and every other worthy cause that the Marting Foundation can sanctify the building with. The window displays, along with the phony façade, are an attempt to disguise the fact that the building is an unholy mess and "ain't worth anything," to quote Marty Mohr (see below), and should have been torn down years ago.

Marting Foundation:

A front group whose original mission was to unload the otherwise worthless downtown building off on the public for $2 million. The Foundation’s revised mission is to return to the city part of the $2 milliion that the courts have ruled it obtained illegally from the city. The Marting Foundation has agreed to return part of the original loot, but only if the city uses the building for a public purpose, such as a municipal building, which will enable the Foundation to obtain a tax write-off.



Malone, Michael:

Brother of “praying” Councilman David A. Malone, Michael A. Malone spent terms in jail and prison for passing bad checks, theft, forgery, DUI, and possessing drug paraphernalia before realizing he was in the wrong racket and decided to get into politics.



Mohr, Marty:

Noise pollution enthusiast and councilmaniac of Ward Six, Mohr avoided being recalled last year by denouncing the purchase of the Marting building, which he told a Columbus Dispatch reporter “ain’t worth anything.” This year Mohr became the biggest supporter of the Marting purchase, prompting the slogan of the current campaign to recall him: “Mohr is Less."



Municipal Building:

A Portsmouth house of ill-repute that has been deliberately and systematically allowed to slide into disrepair and where for several generations Political Prostitutes have practiced the world’s second oldest profession: screwing the public. To obliterate the scene of their crimes and accommodate a developer who reportedly has designs on the site, the Political Prostitutes are campaigning feverishly to hatcher the building.



Portsmouth, City of Prosperity:

The slogan and bumper sticker promoted by "praying councilman" David Malone (that's his car above) and his ex-felon brother Michael (see above), the phrase "City of Prosperity" was coined by a minister of the Deeper Life movement who preached at a 2004 tent revival sponsored by David Malone’s church. The Deeper Life minister prophesied Portsmouth would undergo a divinely inspired economic recovery. The Deeper Life movement was exposed by the Tampa Times in 2003 as a scam for raising money and keeping members in line by forbidding them to criticize their leaders.



Political Prostitutes:

In addition to being known for its sexual prostitutes, Portsmouth is also home to Political Prostitutes who do the bidding of the over-privileged of Portsmouth. The Political Prostitutes can be found publicly suffering like martyrs in the Municipal building when they are not privately performing their dirty tricks.



Porksmouth:

What author Jesse Stuart thought Portsmouth was turning into, as is evident in his novel about Portsmouth and porkbarreling, The Land Beyond the River.




Portsmouth Daily Times:

The incredibly shrinking local daily newspaper that has been screwing the public and covering up for the over-privileged of Portsmouth since 1852.




Running Sores

Beggars in the Middle East, seeking sympathy and handouts from tourists, used to expose their lesions to tourists. Portsmouth city officials flaunt festering leaks in the Municipal Building, such as the one in the corner ceiling of the council chamber, which they deliberately allow to get worse so that they can gain sympathy from taxpayers before they bulldoze the building and turn the land over to a developer.


Singer, Dr. Herbert:

The absentee landlord of the now empty so-called Adelphia building, in Portsmouth. Singer, who lives in Los Angeles, was delinquent in paying taxes on the Adelphia building, but he generously agreed to give it to the city if the city will forgive him his taxes and use the building for some public purpose, such as a police station, so that he can get a tax write-off.

SOGP:

The acronym of the Society for Obtaining Government Pork. Known locally as “Soggy Pee,” the SOGP is the agency that launders public funds and distributes abatements for the over-privileged of Portsmouth.

Tax Write-off:

What you settle for when your downtown building is worthless commercially but which you can still collect something on but only if the building can be converted at great public expense to some public use, such as a municipal building, a police station, a welcome center, or a comfort station.



Travel World Agency:

A fly-by-night travel agency formed by three of Portsmouth’s over-privileged, one of whom was in dentistry, another in furniture, and a third, in crushed rock. World became a favorite travel agency at Shawnee State., where the rock man was chair of the Board of Trustees and the furniture man’s wife was Director of Development. When World Travel crashed after 9/11, Clayton Johnson engineered a deal whereby the agency got a tax-write off by donating its dubious assets to a public entity, the Ohio University branch in Ironton.

Felonious Election

M. Malone Petition for City Council


The tangled legal issue of felons’ rights that I am going to deal with in this blog is difficult to disentangle, and I don’t claim to understand it fully myself. But felons’ rights can affect us all. Keep in mind the removal of felons from voting rolls in Florida is credited by some critics with having won Florida and therefore the presidency for George W. Bush in 2000. We had our own little “felonious election” in Portsmouth in 2004 in which a convicted felon not only voted but ran for public office. He missed being elected to the Portsmouth City Council by only a single vote. Had he won, we might today still be trying to resolve the issue of whether he had a right, as a felon, to remain in the office to which he was elected.

Ohio was in the national news following the 2004 elections because of alleged voting irregularities throughout the state. Minority voters faced various hurdles to voting and getting their votes counted properly. The Democratic staff of the House Judiciary Committee issued a status report “Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio.” One of the irregularities listed in the report was that “Numerous voters were incorrectly listed on the roster as felons and thus not allowed to vote.” The irregularity we had in Portsmouth was just the opposite: a minority candidate with a criminal background was allowed and perhaps encourage to run for public office because he could be expected to support the over-privileged white elite who control the city. In the stealth campaign the candidate ran, the local newspaper and politicians, who were in a position to know of the candidate’s criminal background, said nothing. (See
http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohiostatusrept1505.pdf )


With thanks to catoonist Thomas Nast

The question with which I closed my previous blog, “My Brother’s Keeper,” was whether a convicted felon can run for and hold public office in Ohio. The Ohio Revised Code (2961.01) states “A person convicted of a felony under the laws of this or any other state or the United States, unless the conviction is reversed or annulled, is incompetent to be an elector or juror or to hold an office of honor, trust, or profit.” Not only does ORC 2961.01 exclude felons from elected office but the Ohio Constitution empowers the legislature with that authority, stating that the General Assembly can “exclude from the privilege . . . of being eligible to office, any person convicted of a felony.” That would seem to answer the question in the negative: a felon is “incompetent” or unfit to hold public office. A 1998 decision by then Attorney General Betty Montgomery reaffirmed this interpretation, at least for convicted federal felons, but it would appear also to apply to state felons: in her words, “. . . under ORC 2961.01, a convicted federal felon may not hold the office of member of the legislative authority of a municipality in Ohio.” (See http://agohio.org/sections/opinions/1998/98-013.htm)

ORC 2961.01 says a felon cannot vote or hold public office, but ORC 2961.01 goes on to say “When any person convicted of a felony under any law of that type is granted parole, judicial release, or a conditional pardon or is released under a non-jail community control sanction or a post-release control sanction, the person is competent to be an elector during the period of community control, parole, post-release control, or release or until the conditions of the pardon have been performed or have transpired and is competent to be an elector thereafter following final discharge.” In other words, once felons have paid their debt to society, they are once more eligible to be electors, or voters.

An attorney in the Secretary of State’s office with whom I discussed ORC 2961.01 said that the restoration of felons’ voting rights automatically restores their right to run for and hold public office. How can that be, I asked, since the language of ORC 2961.01 clearly states a felon was incompetent to hold public office? The law is confusing, she acknowledged, but that was for the legislature, not the courts, to straighten out. Regarding felons’ right to vote and hold public office in Ohio, ORC 2961.01, or the way it has been interpreted, is not just confusing: it is bizarre. In a footnote to Ohio Attorney General Betty Montgomery’s 1998 ruling on the issue, she said it is the case in Ohio and in most other states that a felon can run for public office even though the law denies them the right to hold public office. “Ohio follows the general rule,” she wrote, “that specified disqualifications for holding a public office do not prevent an individual from being a candidate for the office unless the law expressly extends the disqualifications to candidacy.” If most states follow this bizarre rule, most states have an electoral screw loose.

And there is yet another twist to it. If a felon who has been elected to public office is permitted by a local body, say the city council, to be sworn into office, it is the responsibility of local officials, and the county prosecutor, in particular, to bring legal action to remove the felon from office. That’s what I was told by a state official. If Malone had been elected and sworn into office by the Portsmouth City Council, would Mark Kuhn, who was elected Scioto County Prosecutor last November, have sought to remove Malone from office? Someone who knows the politics of Portsmouth better than I do told me that Kuhn probably would not have taken action against the candidate. If Mark Kuhn did not act, what then? I was told that if Malone was allowed to remain on the city council, a private citizen could then have brought suit to remove him. A single vote is how close we came to having one the most potentially expensive and bitter legal fights in Portsmouth’s history.

I am not against ex-felons voting and even holding public office. What I am against is allowing an ex-felon, with the acquiesence and possible complicity of the press and corrupt politicians, to take advantage of Ohio’s crazy election laws and run a stealth campaign in which voters are not alerted to that candidate’s chronic criminal behavior. It was apparently enough for the Daily Times and the politicians that Malone was opposed to recalling anybody, including the city council member he would have replaced if elected. As candidate Malone told the Daily Times (Oct. 31, 2004), the attempt to recall Carol Caudill “was a bad thing.”

The role of City Solicitor David Kuhn and of City Clerk JoAnn Aeh in Michael Malone’s decision to run for office, in spite of his extensive criminal record, has yet to be clarified. I think of the controversial 2004 Ward 3 election as a “felonious election.” David Kuhn, who is County Prosecutor Mark Kuhn’s uncle, and JoAnn Aeh and the Portsmouth police chief Horner are hot on the trail of Native American Russ Cooper, who was trying to run against City Councilman David Malone, brother of convicted forger Michael Malone. The forgery charges against Cooper, who has no previous felony convictions, were front-page news in the Daily Times, as was the DUI arrest a few months ago of Eric Wrage, Mark Kuhn’s opponent in last November’s Scioto County Prosecutor election. As Austin Leedom reported in The Shawnee Sentinel, all charges against Wrage were dropped on September 20, 2005.

Is there a pattern here? The Daily Times publishes on its front-page charges that prove to be unsubstantiated or misleading regarding candidates who don’t support the over-privileged of Portsmouth. The Daily Times ignores the criminal background of a candidate who, like the Daily Times, is opposed to the reform movement, a candidate who could be expected if he won to join with his brother and those other members of the Portsmouth City Council who do the bidding of Boss Tweedy and the SOGP. Is this any way to run a newspaper, an election, or a city?

(For background on felons and elections, see http://www.law2.byu.edu/lawreview/archives/2003_2.htm)

My Brother's Keeper

From Daily Times Election Supplement

On November 2, 2004, in the recall election to decide who would replace Carol Caudill as Ward 3 representative on the Portsmouth City Council, Michael A. Malone lost to Robert Mollette by a single vote. That Malone came that close was surprising because he has a long criminal record, previously having been arrested for writing bad checks and for drug-related charges and for having served a jail term for theft, forgery and receiving stolen property. In 2000, he had been arrested for stealing checks from another brother and forging his signature. For that crime Malone served time in the state prison in Orient, Ohio. (For Michael A. Malone’s city and country arrest records go to http://www.portsmouth-municipal-court.com/ and to http://www.sciotocountycpcourt.org/) or view the rap sheets below.)

How did a man with Malone’s criminal record come so close to winning a seat on the Portsmouth City Council? Part of the answer is that Malone himself and the relatively few people who knew about his criminal background said nothing about it during the election campaign. Malone’s brother, Councilman David A. Malone, said nothing about it, at least not publicly. The City Solicitor David Kuhn, and the City Clerk JoAnn Aeh said nothing about it publicly, as far as I know, although Malone said he had told them about it because he wanted to know if being a convicted felon would prevent him from running. They told him he could run and hold office, Malone claimed, but they did not publicly let anyone else know what they knew about him.

Malone later claimed he had “a campaign attorney who guided him through various stages of the campaign.” Perhaps it was his “campaign attorney” who advised him to wage the stealth campaign that very nearly won him the election. If you are advising a candidate who has an extensive criminal record, you don’t want to put him in public forums where he might have to answer questions about that record. Robert Mollette told me Malone was pretty much a no–show during the campaign. Malone did not participate in debates or make any public appearances that Mollette knew of. The Portsmouth Daily Times had very little to tell its readers about Malone. In its special Oct. 31 supplement “Election 2004,” the Daily Times gave readers Malone’s age, names of his family, his education, and his political experience, which was none. It also reported what his hobbies were – sports and church – and what his favorite team was. That was one of the six questions the Daily Times asked all candidates: What is your favorite team? In future election supplements the Daily Times might do well to add another question: “Do you have any felony convictions?”

Public officials at the Scioto County Courthouse and at the Portsmouth Municipal Building knew of Malone’s long record, but the Daily Times and the Community Common never got wind of it, or if they did, they chose to hold their noses. There are some stories our local newspapers don’t cover. It is part of our local cover-up journalism. If the over-privileged of Portsmouth are going to continue to be able to eminent domain other people's property and unload their own distressed properties on the public, the city council must continue to operate in its traditional corrupt manner. Faced with the alternative of having a chronic criminal or an honest and able individual representing Ward 3, those in power appparently preferred the criminal, since he probably would be replaced anyway.

Harold Daub worked for many years with another Malone brother, so when Michael Malone asked him to serve on his election committee, Daub agreed. Daub told me he knew nothing of Malone’s criminal record when he agreed to be one of the five people on Malone’s election committee. Daub did not know of Malone’s criminal background until after the election. A week after the election, on November 8, 2004, Daub wrote a letter to Stephen Mowery, the attorney who is the chair of the Scioto County Board of Elections, saying, “I am distraught to discover 3rd Ward Council candidate Mr. Michael A. Malone has been charged and convicted of a theft/forgery felony (00CR000361) and spent time in prison in the state of Ohio.” Daub also wrote, “I just recently discussed this issue with Mr. Malone and discovered he had informed the City Solicitor David Kuhn and City Clerk JoAnn Aeh, of his felony record prior to obtaining petitions. Per Mr. Malone both Mr. Kuhn and Ms. Aeh stated, he could run for City Council.”

Since Malone was running as a candidate who was opposed to the recall movement, which the Daily Times also opposed, it is not likely a Daily Times reporter would ask Michael Malone about his criminal record. It was also unlikely that a flyer would appear in the Daily Times or the Community Common identifying Malone as a convicted felon, though such a flyer had appeared in the Community Common in June 2004 in the form of a wanted poster, identifying three people supporting the recall of Mayor Bauer as felons. None of those three, it should be noted, was running for office.

Malone came as close as he did to winning a council seat not only because he waged a campaign that successfully avoided having to face questions about his criminal record, but also because he was opposed to the recall movement. In speaking before the Portsmouth City Council a month after the election, Michael Malone praised Carol Caudill and Ann Sydnor, the two councilwomen who had been recalled. “Saying he wanted to put one thing in perspective,” the council minutes report, “Mr. Malone acknowledged the absence, in the room, of former Council members Ann Sydnor and Carol Caudill due to recall. He pointed out that both Ann Sydnor and Carol Caudill served the City well, saying ‘They’ve served the city for many years and although not sitting in a Council seat they are still active in the community.’” Malone told the Daily Times' Jeff Barron, "The recall is a bad thing" (Oct. 31, 2004).

If he was opposed to recalling Caudill, why did Malone run as a candidate to replace her? Because he wanted to offer voters an alternative to Mollette, who was active in the reform movement. In reporting election results in the Community Common, Mike Deaterla reported “Malone, the brother of 2nd Ward Councilman David Malone, had originally opposed the recall but had wanted to give voters another choice” (11/3/04).

I have heard rumors that Carol Caudill advised voters in Ward 3 to vote for Malone, because he was preferable to Mollette, whom she accused of being in the race only for personal reasons. If elected, Malone could be counted on to do what Caudill had done on the city council: be a rubber stamp for the SOGP and the over-privileged of Portsmouth. Election petitions on file at the Board of Elections show support for Malone was very strong on Baird St., where Caudill had formerly lived and where she had a number of supporters. But I doubt that many of the sixteen people on Baird St. who signed Malone’s election petitions knew of his criminal record.

In 2004, at the time he was running for Portsmouth City Council, Michael Malone was in court again, this time for not paying money he owed to Auto Now Acceptance Co. The court docket shows that on Monday, November 1, 2004, a day before the election, a certified letter that had been sent to Malone and his wife had been returned unclaimed to court (Case Number: CVF0402141). Consequently, Auto Now’s case against Malone could not begin because the defendant could not be located. The docket reads, “THE ABOVE STYLED CASE IS INACTIVE DUE TO THE UNAVAILABILITY TO ACCUSED.” In the unlikely event that someone, say the Daily Times, might have discovered and reported that a candidate for city council who was being sued for not paying his debts had failed to show up in court on the eve of the election, Malone’s prospects for becoming a member of city council might have been reduced. The court did not attempt to reach Malone by mail until Nov. 15, two weeks after the election. It should be noted that, in his previous appearances before the courts, Malone pled indigency, so an attorney had to be appointed for him at public expense. However, in the legal trouble he was in with Auto Now during the last election period, Malone was represented by George L. Davis III, who is reputed to be one of the best lawyers in Portsmouth.

In speaking before the Portsmouth City Council on Dec. 13, 2004, a month after the election, Michael Malone, responding to a question by a member of the public, addressed the issue of whether a felon could run for a seat on the council. According to council minutes, “[Michael Malone] said that no matter whether you are a convicted felon or not, you can still run and hold a public office. Mr. Malone said he researched, got a campaign attorney who guided him through various stages of the campaign and was found to be qualified and able to serve.”

Sounding like a Daily Times editorial, or a speech by a member of the Portsmouth Chamber of Commerce, Malone in speaking before the city council on Dec. 13 criticized the negativity that prevailed in Portsmouth, including the critical comments that had been expressed by citizens earlier at that same council meeting. Malone said negative attitudes needed to be changed. “He said ‘The City of Portsmouth is a city or prosperity but it starts with the individual, again saying individual attitudes needs [sic] to change to the positive.'”

I was in the council chambers that night and heard the neatly dressed and articulate Michael Malone make his speech. The slogan “Portsmouth: City of Prosperity,” which I have since seen on several bumpers, including on David Malone’s automobile, was not the creation of Michael or David Malone. The source of that slogan was Bishop Arbrey Harley, of the Deeper Life Church, in Baltimore. Harley had preached in 2004 in Portsmouth at a religious tent meeting that had been sponsored by David Malone’s church.

According to Portia Williams, a guest columnist in the Daily Times who reported enthusiastically on Bishop Harley’s City of Prosperity sermon (10/3/04), the idea of having Bishop Harley preach in Portsmouth came from Linda Phipps, a pastoral associate of Rev. Malone. Ms. Phipps claimed to have received “the initial word from God to have the tent revival . . .” And Bishop Harley, presumably not coincidentally, claimed to have received a prophecy from God that Portsmouth would soon become a prosperous vibrant city. That was the good news he brought to the tent meeting. However, for God’s prophecy to be fulfilled, people had to be positive about Portsmouth. “Just as Bishop Harley suggested,” Williams wrote, “when we speak of the city of Portsmouth we must say, ‘Portsmouth: The City of Prosperity!’”

Bishop Hartley had prophesied that Portsmouth would become a city of prosperity, where businesses would thrive, but that turned out not to be the case for Malone, for as recently as March 2005 he was back in court, being sued by Ritchie’s Food for not meeting his financial obligations as the operator of the Big Top Malt Shop (05MC000407).

The first Deeper Life Church had been founded in Florida by a preacher whose sexual and financial improprieties were exposed in a series of articles in the Tampa Tribune in 2003. One of the rules of the Deeper Life movement is that members must be positive, not negative. Members of the Tampa Deeper Life Church were told they must not criticize the leaders of that church. The Tampa Tribune reported that at one evening prayer service, “a visiting evangelist warned that the bishop and his wife are sacred angels. Do not provoke or criticize them, he said.” (For more on Tampa’s Deeper Life Church, click on http://www.religionnewsblog.com/html/4570-.html )

I had not yet seen Michael Malone’s criminal record, so I could not appreciate the irony of his speaking before the city council about individual responsibility and his preaching Bishop Harley’s gospel of prosperity through positive thinking. Michael Malone’s previous attempts to achieve prosperity through crime had been unsuccessful. So the candidate who missed a seat on the Portsmouth City Council by only one vote and spoke before the city council urging more individual responsibility and less negativism, had a criminal record that included being in possession of drug paraphernalia, receiving stolen property, taking out loans he would not repay, writing bad checks, and stealing paychecks from a brother. Anyone who may have thought that the Michael Malone who advocated individual responsibility before the city council last December had turned over a new leaf was mistaken. As recently as Feb. and March of this year, 2005, Malone was in trouble again for theft and passing a bad check. (See items numbered 1, 2. and 3 on the third rap sheet below.)

The Daily Times did not report that Malone had a criminal record until more than a week after Harold Daub had raised the issue in his Nov. 8th letter to Steve Mowery. Malone’s criminal record is not hard to find: it is on the internet for the public and reporters alike to see. Finally getting on the trail of the Malone story, the Daily Times’ Jeff Barron reported on Nov. 19th that “Malone did not return repeated phone calls seeking comment about the conviction.” When contacted by Barron, David Malone admitted his brother Michael had spent time in prison “but said he didn’t know what for.” It seems hard to believe that Rev. Malone, in Nov. 2004, would still not have known why his brother Michael had served time in prison in 2000, because Michael had stolen and forged checks of a third Malone brother. "Am I my brother's keeper?" is the biblical passage that comes to mind. Was David Malone trying to separate himself from his brother, or was he trying to shield him, as he and others had during the campaign?

Rev. David Malone preaching on steps of Municipal Building

Contrast the way in which Michael A. Malone was encouraged to run for city council and provided a campaign attorney and protected from public scrutiny with the way Joe Perry, an honest hardworking electrician and African-American property owner has been treated by Neal Hatcher and the politicians who do that developer’s eminent domaining for him. Or compare the treatment Michael Malone got as a candidate for Portsmouth City Council to the treatment Russell Cooper got. A Native American candidate seeking to replace David Malone on the city council, Cooper was summarily arrested and charged with a felony for alleged forged signatures on his petitions. The suspicion is high in the reform movement in Portsmouth that the arrest of Cooper was part of a move to protect the politically vulnerable David Malone from being recalled. Even before it was learned Rev. Malone had been having an adulterous affair with a member of his congregation, the voters in his ward were becoming disillusioned with him as their councilman.

Are the people who were willing to elect a convicted forger, Michael Malone, to the city council, no questions asked, trying now to use a forgery charge to destroy the campaign of David Malone’s challenger?

In another blog I will deal with the bizarre mess that allowed Michael Malone to run for an office that he would not have been legally able to continue in if the Scioto County Prosecutor then enforced the state laws prohibiting felons from holding public office. Stephen Mowery is quoted by Jeff Barron as saying Malone “may not be able to serve because of a prior felony conviction.” Yes, in Ohio a felon can legally run for public office but not legally occupy it. Mowery told me that if Malone had been elected the whole thing would have likely ended up in the courts, where the legal costs to the taxpayers were potentially enormous.

But even if Michael Malone had been elected but not allowed to join his brother David on the city council, the opponents of the reform movement would probably have succeeded in their ultimate objective, which was preventing a reformer from joining the city council. The Portsmouth city charter (Sect. 144.f) calls for the candidate's election committee to appoint a replacement to the city council in case of the death or withdrawal of the candidate. If a victorious Malone had been considered a member of the council but had then been removed by the courts, the city charter (Sect. 3) in that case calls for a majority of the council to appoint someone from that ward to serve on the council. In either case, whether Malone's election committee or the city council made the choice, Mollette, as reform candidate, would have had about as much chance of being appointed as Portsmouth had of miraculously suddenly becoming a City of Prosperity.

Considering how heroically and stoically Mollette has served on the council, his one vote margin of victory over Michael Malone might seem providential to those who believe God gets involved in such matters.
_________________________________________________________________

Rap Sheets for Michael A. Malone

Mother Courage

In the grainy TV image above, a pregnant Julie Stout, protesting the war in Iraq, sits on the lawn in front of Massie Hall with a protest sign in her lap. She is handing her daughter Zelda a bottle of bubble liquid. It was September 10, 2004, exactly a year ago, the day that President George W. Bush slipped into Portsmouth for a rally at the James Rhodes Athletic Center on the campus of Shawnee State U. After nearly four years of Bush in office, Americans were deeply divided about his job performance, particularly about his foreign policy. The reason he slipped in and out of Portsmouth was to avoid the demonstrators he was all too familiar with from his campaign trips to other cities. In 2000 he had run on a promise to be a uniter, not a divider. Primarily because of the invasion of Iraq, by 2004 it was clear he had not kept that campaign promise.

The Rhodes Center at SSU is named after the late Governor James Rhodes, who was a controversial figure because of his role leading up to the killing of four Kent State students and the wounding of nine others by the Ohio National Guard on May 4, 1970. The day before the May 4th shootings, Gov. Rhodes had given a provocative speech in which he said of the demonstrators, “They're the worst type of people that we harbor in America. I think that we're up against the strongest, well-trained, militant, revolutionary group that has ever assembled in America.” He warned that every means at the disposal of the authorities would be used against them. It was reported that some of the National Guard troops later said they had fired because they were fearful of their lives. Two of the students killed were not demonstrators; one of them was a young woman on her way to class. Unfairly or not, many held Rhodes responsible for the tragedy that occurred. Unfairly or not, increasing numbers of Americans by September 2004 held George W. Bush responsible for the deaths of over 1000 American soldiers in Iraq and the maiming of many thousands more, not to speak of the death and maiming of tens of thousands of Iraqis.

Not just the Rhodes Center but the entire Shawnee State campus was in control of city and federal authorities the day of Bush’s visit. The university officials cooperated completely with the Bush team to insure that protestors would not be allowed on campus: they were confined to a small traffic island at the entrance of the campus. The traffic island was surrounded by police cruisers with flashing lights and yellow police tape. The Bush entourage was spared the discomfort of even having to see the protestors on the traffic island: the buses drove around the traffic islanders and entered the campus by a back route. To further insure that the Bush entourage and the carefully screened audience would not have to see demonstrators, and that demonstrators could not see them, much of the campus was declared a no-protest zone.


Four-year-old Zelda on Sept. 10, 2004

One of the very few demonstrators who entered the no-protest zone was Julie Stout, who sat on the lawn in front of Massie Hall with her four-year-old daughter Zelda. It was a lovely day and Zelda played nearby, blowing soap bubbles while her mother sat with the poster in her lap.

On my way into Massie Hall, I stopped to talk with Julie as some gray-haired people who had been at the rally began strolling down the walkway that had been dubbed “Success Way” by a failed administrator at Shawnee. As they passed Julie and her sign, the Bush folk could not believe their eyes. They saw a child blowing soap bubbles and her pregnant mother sitting on the grass with her legs crossed holding that sign in her lap.



I moved back to film the reactions of passersby wearing Bush buttons. They shook their heads and mumbled disapproval. The presence of Zelda bothered passing women and bothered in particular a woman I knew, whom I will call Hildegard. In her agitated state Hildegard did not notice me. I knew her as an intelligent and caring professional woman, so I was surprised, surprised not that she would have been at the Bush rally but that she would stop and accuse Julie, whom she had never seen before, of being an unfit mother on the basis of the sign Julie was holding. She berated Julie for setting a poor example for her daughter. A poor example of what?

Women like Hildegard considered Julie’s opinion of Pres. Bush treasonous, but instead of challenging Julie’s politics they accused her of being an unfit mother. If Julie’s husband, who was protesting elsewhere, had been sitting there with that sign in his lap and his daughter playing nearby, I doubt anyone would have accused him of being an unfit father. They might have called him names, but not an unfit father. Apparently, you can say nothing worse about a woman than that she is an unfit mother. Apparently, being “unfit” is even worse than being a “slut.” “Unfit” is the ultimate insult: it transcends politics, race, and religion. Being an unfit mother is the unpardonable sin; it is a crime against nature.

I have since learned that Julie is not an unfit mother. On the contrary, I think she is an exceptionally responsible mother, because she feels improving the kind of a world and country and city that her children will grow up in is one of her important duties as a mother. What infuriates some other women is not that she is an unfit mother but that she is an outspoken woman. Some women might tolerate and even begrudgingly admire an outspoken man, but not an outspoken woman, especially not one expressing political views they consider un-American. How dare a woman act so independently. How dare a woman suggest the president and vice president are war criminals.

Further complicating all this is that too many of these women who can’t stand women like Julie are often married to husbands who, in spite of their bluster, brush-clearing, and testosterone posturing, tend to be losers who go into politics and suck up to and leech themselves on to those who have money and power. That is as true at the national as it is at the local level. Mike Brown, the head of FEMA, who was just "reassigned" yesterday following his recent display of criminal incompetence, is a good example of the frat brother loser who becomes a political lackey. But there are even better examples higher up the chain of incompetence.

In one of his plays, Bertolt Brecht created a character named Mother Courage. Director Michael Kahn said, “Mother Courage has an ironic sense of humor that allows her to survive the most difficult situations. She is also a tenacious fighter, unwilling to be averted from her goal of providing for herself and her children.” Almost a year before Cindy Sheehan took up her heroic vigil at Crawford, Texas, Julie Stout was sitting in the no-protest zone of the campus, accompanied only by her daughter, with a sign accusing Bush and Cheney of being war criminals. That took courage. Especially a year ago. Now that a majority of Americans have turned against Bush and the war, Julie’s sign, in September 2005, appears a little less heretical than it did on September 10, 2004.

Julie has since given birth to a son, Henry, which is all the more reason as a mother she is not going to let those who call her unfit stop her from fighting for a better future for her children. She and her husband Drew and her two children form a tight-knit family that this community can take pride in, in contrast to the adulterous lifestyle of some local politicians. She was born and raised in Ohio. She is a Buckeye mother with the courage of her convictions. In national elections, Ohio is considered a swing state, which can go in either direction. She shows in which direction Ohio and the country may be headed.


A happy Zelda and a contented Henry at home

Battle in the Fray

Soprano Kathleen Battle

(At the August 22nd meeting of the Portsmouth City Council, Lela Perry read a statement from her sister, Kathleen Battle, protesting the mistreatment of Joe Perry, her nephew, whose property in Hatcherville is being eminently domained. "How can the City of Portsmouth even think about exclusively supporting certain 'property developers,' " Battle wrote, "while at the same time preventing another property owner-manager from making an honest living?")

The Developer and the Diva: A Fable

There once was a white boy from the wrong side of the tracks who married a pork rind heiress and became a rich real estate developer in his home town by conspiring with local officials to use Eminent Domain to deprive people of their property. Hawk-like, wearing a wrecking ball lapel pin, the Developer lived in his nest on The Hill, eyeing other people’s property.

The plight of those below, who were deprived of their property, was not reported in the local press, which dared not criticize the over-abated and over-privileged denizens on The Hill, most of whom, like the Developer, were afflicted with a degenerative illness called Porkinson’s Disease, which results in extreme dependency on government money.

There also was from the same town a poor black girl who became a world-famous opera star whose voice had a magical quality that captured the hearts of listeners everywhere, not just at the Met and La Scala.

When the rich white developer tried to Eminent Domain a young real estate entrepreneur, a nephew of the opera star, she raised her pure voice in protest. Her voice was joined by a chorus of others, the sentinels of democracy, who denounced the monopoly the rich white Developer had over the local real estate market. It was the Soprano versus the Sopranos.

The state passed a law to stop the abuse of Eminent Domain. The Developer’s wings were clipped. The property of the young black entrepreneur was rescued from the Developer’s nest. Things ended on a high note. Justice triumphed.

Moral: Don’t count your eggs before they’re hatchered.

800 Pound Gorilla

It has become a mantra of Howard Baughman and the Portsmouth Daily Times: We have to put the Marting scandal behind us. We have to move on. The people of Portsmouth are not going to forget that fast, nor should they. It is not that easy forgetting, for what "moving on" really means is "We pulled off this scam, we won, so get over it!"

By “Marting scandal” I refer not only to the original sale of the empty leaking decrepit building to the city but also to the outrageous way in which the Portsmouth City Council and acting-Mayor Kalb, once the sale was declared illegal, allowed Clayton Johnson to dictate the terms under which he would return to the city the money he had illegally obtained from it. It is like someone who has stolen your wallet getting caught and then saying what you have to do to get the money back; and incidentally, you are not going to get all of your money back because the thief lost some of it as a result of gambling, in this case through bad investments in financial markets.

The Marting scandal is the 800 pound gorilla who sits in at every council meeting. All the searches and metal detectors have not kept out the gorilla. Howard Baughman and Marty Mohr know the gorilla is there, which is why they’re so nervous, and why they want to stop anyone from saying anything at council meetings to stir up the gorilla. Mayor Kalb also knows the gorilla is there, which may be why he looks so chronically depressed. They obviously wish everyone but especially that gorilla would go away and never attend another council meeting. They would like to return to the bad old days, when hardly anyone showed up for council meetings. They would like to go back to the days when council sessions were not broadcast on the radio. They would like to go back to the days when Marting’s deals were pulled off routinely, without so much as a grunt from any gorilla. They would like to go back to the days before every council meeting was a standing-room-only potential Irish wake.

Because of the Marting’s scandal, and the recalls that resulted from it, Portsmouth politicians and their supporters at the Daily Times fear the voters of Portsmouth even more than Dracula feared the cross, because they know that if the voters had an opportunity to vote on the city accepting the Marting building they would reject it, as they would also reject several councilmen by recalling them, if the recalls were not thwarted in one way or another.





When people in Portsmouth in 2030 look back to 2005, as we now can look back twenty-five years, to 1980, I think the Marting scandal will stand out as the defining political event of this era, just as the recall of three councilmen who tried to fire City Manager Barry Feldman stands out as the tumultuous and defining political event of that past era.

Consider what the Marting scandal has led to. It led to the birth of the recall movement. It led to the recall of Mayor Greg Bauer. It led to the recall of Carol Caudill and Ann Sydnor from the city council. It led to the election of Bob Mollette and Tim Loper to the city council. Marty Mohr might have been recalled if he hadn’t come out against the purchase of the Marting building, which he said at the time “ain’t worth anything!” He of course has since changed his tune, and become one of the biggest fans of the Marting building, which is why he is now the object of a recall effort in Ward 6.

The Marting building remains as Portsmouth's bad dream, a distorted House of Usher/Dorian Gray/Freddie Krueger landmark lurking just behind that 1950-ish phony facade.

Marting's: Portsmouth's Bad Dream

The Marting scandal led to Lee Scott becoming a relentless leader of the recall movement. The Marting scandal reenergized such veterans as Richard Noel, Harold Daub, and Jim Wilson. The Marting scandal led to the involvement of a number of people who were not previously involved in city politics, such as Bob and Teresa Mollette. The Marting scandal led to the Mollettes standing up to the over-privileged as no couple in the last twenty-five years have been able to do. The Mollettes have spent much of their free time and over $24,000 of their savings to see that justice was done in the Marting matter. Judge Marshall’s decision invalidating the sale of the Marting building because of the underhanded tactics used by Clayton Johnson is a landmark decision in Portsmouth’s legal history, and the people of Portsmouth, whether they know it or not, are in debt not only to Judge Marshall but also to the Mollettes, who were instrumental in bringing it about.

The Marting scandal increased the readership of the Shawnee Sentinel, whose number of visitors have grown eye-poppingly while the Daily Times continues to wallow in the circulation doldrums along with alleged ducks in storm drains. The Marting scandal inspired John Welton and Austin Leedom to dig even deeper into the corrupt activities of the over-privileged of Portsmouth. The Marting scandal has attracted younger people, such as Julie Stout and Andrew Feight, into the campaign for honest government. The Marting scandal even led Joe Ferguson to become an investigative videographer and for Claudette to use her writing skills in on-line forums to good advantage.

The Marting scandal led to websites and blogs, including River Vices. In the fourteen years I had lived in Portsmouth, I had almost always voted in state and national elections, but I had never once voted in a city election, that I can remember. I used to think it was only Shawnee State that was in control of the over-privileged of Portsmouth. I knew nothing of Portsmouth politics prior to the Marting scandal, but as a result of making a video, The Recall of Mayor Bauer, I became very interested in Portsmouth politics and, like others had much earlier, became outraged at what I learned. I became one of the angry voters who went to the polls a year ago June. I created River Vices as a way of making my voice heard and trying to make amends for years of ignorance of and indifference to who the mayor or the members of city council were, or what was going on beyond the boundaries of the university, even while the university was using eminent domain to expand its boundaries by destroying surrounding neighborhoods on behalf of local developer Neal Hatcher. It was politically unconscious people like me that made it possible for the over-privileged of Portsmouth to continue to control and exploit the city. A large number of Portsmouth voters (and not just those the Daily Times dismisses as a handful of malcontents) are not asleep any more, and neither am I, and neither is that gorilla. Not yet anyway.