Schilling was on a witch-hunt
I don't know Ric Barrick, but from all the reports I have read and heard, I have to say that the continued efforts by Rob Schilling to disparage this man truly represent a witch-hunt. [March 29: "Stressed and out: City spokesman resigns after bid-rigging investigation"]
It's good to have a community watchdog who wants to ferret out wrongdoing in local government. Rob found irregularities, and he had them checked out. That's great. But the subsequent official investigation has not shown one bit of corruption.
Corruption in government is exemplified by someone acting in his own interests and thus making decisions that result in some kind of personal benefit. I have not seen nor heard one news report, including Rob's own on-air reporting, that has demonstrated any personal profit to Ric Barrick. The man didn't follow the rules when procuring a vendor for the City, which is not a good thing, but he obviously was not behaving in a criminal manner that demands prosecution and punishment by the City.
It's immoral to continue to publicly persecute someone for unfounded allegations which, I am disappointed to say, Rob Schilling is doing. Once it was clear that there was no criminal intent, the community watchdog should have dropped the issue instead of continuing to talk about an allegation that actually has no basis in fact.
Marlene A. Condon
Crozet
10 comments
".........exemplified by someone acting in his own interests and thus making decisions that result in some kind of personal benefit"
whether you view this as good or bad, it exemplifies Mr. Schilling's ongoing behavior in the Barrick incident.
Not following the rules or placing yourself above the law is the first step on the slippery slope to corruption in government. Incompetence and/or arrogance cannot be tolerated in government employees.
Ric may be a nice guy, but he needed to be held accountable for his inappropriate actions. One needs to follow the rules especially when spending taxpayer money! Just because he didn't personally profit from his actions, doesn't earn him a pass for breaking the rules -- especially after he sought counsel on the transaction and still broke the rules.
Schilling is the messenger. Go shoot someone else!
Who is in charge of the City's internal controls to prevent this kind of behavior? That's who needs to feel the heat!
Is isn't at all clear that Barrick's actions were not the result of criminal intent. First he broke the law and rigged bidding so that a losing bidder came out the winner. In order to make that happen he he passed along confidential information, he back dated documents, and when he was caught, he destroyed evidence.
It seems pretty obvious that the destruction of documents that were part of a legitimate FOIA request was intentional. The rest needs a more thorough investigation than it got before we know just what was going on, but we do know that the winning bid was INCREASED significantly by the bidder that had at first been the losing bidder but it was broken into two parts so as to appear lower. Where was that extra money going to go?
Even if, and that's a big if, Barrick was ignorant of the law, since when is that an excuse? SInce when is someone so ignorant a man we want making a $95,000 a year salary at our expense? How likely is it that someone so ignorant was the best hire for the job rather than just good friends with those doing the hiring?
Instead of firing Barrick like he deserves, his friends have made sure he has a soft landing, just like they made sure he got the job in the first place. Maurice Jones has added another stain to his reputation by lying about what happened with Barrick's supposed resignation. Barrick is still employed by the city and making $27/hour, which is pretty good pay. If that job was part of the job he had been doing, then clearly he didn't resign and Jones didn't accept a resignation, he simply reduced Barricks work load. If that job wasn't part of Barricks's old job, then he was hired for a new job at the same time he supposedly resigned. The third possibility is that Barrick actually had two jobs that he was getting paid for and had been drawing pay for a second part-time position while on salary for a full time position. No matter which of those is true, we have been lied to about his employment.
I rarely agree with Schilling political positions, and I wouldn't vote to have him on city council again, but I am very grateful that he has found his calling as a radio talk show host. I'm especially grateful that his position has allowed him to open a small crack and shed some light on what is most certainly only a tiny fraction of the corruption in city hall. Attacking Schilling for doing that work is misguided and seems to condone misbehavior on the part of public employees, which in my view should not be tolerated at all.
Rob Schilling isn't a watchdog. He's a public personality like Sarah Palin (but definitely a few steps above SP.) He's not an employed as an advocate of the public. To expect him to act as a legitimate watchdog is like expecting a dog catcher to act like an official officer of the law.
Moral of the story: Avoid conflicts with public personalities: they have the means to get their message out, they aren't bound by strict ethics, and (here's the important part) they usually get their way.
What is his current "continued efforts" (I assume he talks about it on his show)? Is he trying to re-open the criminal case again?
"Who is in charge of the City's internal controls to prevent this kind of behavior? That's who needs to feel the heat!
Ultimately, I believe, that would be the PAC that poses as the city's council.
It is clear that Marlene Condon has either not read or has failed to understand the report concerning Ric Barrick. Rob merely exposed corruption in our city government. Rob was acting as a concerned citizen willing to above and beyond the call of duty to hold our city officials accountable to their constituents.
Rob Schilling is a Charlottesville hero!
@Marlene Condon, Are you a fool or are you practicing for a part in a play?
This story is not that hard to understand.
"But the subsequent official investigation has not shown one bit of corruption." The operative word by the special investigator was "criminal."
"Corruption in government is exemplified by someone acting in his own interests and thus making decisions that result in some kind of personal benefit." You made up this definition, didn't you?
"Once it was clear that there was no criminal intent,..." No, it is not clear there was no criminal intent. The investigator said she could not discover any. That is an entirely different thing. For some reason I do no think she looked that hard.
If anyone wants to hear Schilling's oral response to this letter spend about 10 minutes listening to this podcast. http://podcast.wina.com/wina/3403775.mp3 .It says it all.
I have a lot of respect for Marlene Condon's writing about the natural world. She doesn't seem to be so well informed about the un-natual world of politics though. Schilling has done the citizens of Charlottesville a good deed by uncovering corruption, thanks are what he deserves, not to be chastised by someone who seems to have a strong partisan bias of her own if she can't see that what Barrick did was wrong and deserved punishment criminal intent or not. Incompetence and failure to follow procedures when told the right way to do something are grounds for firing too.
Why did this go from breaking news this morning to buried not long after?