Dumler petition: Mr. Smith goes to circuit court
-
Earl Smith watches as Deputy Clerk Dayna Awkard time stamps his petitions.photo by lisa provence -
Albemarle Clerk of Court Debbie Shipp explains to reporters the recall process, which rarely-- if ever-- happens in Virginia.photo by lisa provence -
Meanwhile, Supervisor Dumler makes the cover of the latest issue of "Crime Times."Submitted photo
In the latest episode of the scandal-plagued, sexual-battery-pleading, jail-time-serving Supervisor Chris Dumler saga, one of his constituents takes 584 signatures to Albemarle Circuit Court to ask a judge to remove Dumler from the Board of Supervisors, a request pretty much unprecedented in Virginia.
Keene resident Earl Smith presented his petitions to the Albemarle clerk of circuit court Tuesday morning, March 26, with a handful of reporters in tow. Before handing them over, he still urged Dumler to "admit what you did was wrong," and advised, "People are very forgiving; they like the underdog."
For Albemarle Clerk Debbie Shipp, Smith's petition for removal of an elected official is the first in her 37 years at the courthouse. "This is brand new," says Shipp. She's been readying for the petitions, and checked with her counterpart in Chesterfield, the jurisdiction that came closest to removing an elected official.
That was the 2006 case of another Democratic rising star, Midlothian Supervisor Ed Barber, who was arrested for two felonies and pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of sexual assault for inappropriately touching his then-16-year-old stepdaughter. Barber refused to resign from the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors, and there was talk of a recall petition. Barber resigned before that happened.
"Why wasn't the law changed in 2006?" asks Smith, a district manager for Kohr Brothers. "Shame on those legislators."
Shipp will put the petition before Judge Cheryl Higgins, who will direct the county registrar to verify that the signatures are Scottsville district registered voters, explains Shipp.
Virginia code pertaining to the removal of an alleged official is much more concerned with pot-smokers than sexual batterers. It calls for signatures of 10 percent of those voting in the district in 2009– 372 signatures– and says a circuit court may remove an official when neglect in the performance of duties "has a material adverse effect upon the conduct of the office..."
But no one can cite a circuit court judge actually doing that in Virginia.
Smith is convinced that the list of adverse effects he's been documenting, from Dumler recusing himself on the Keene landfill votes to being stripped of committee assignments by the Board of Supervisors, will be enough to oust the 27-year-old from the board.
Once the signatures are verified, "We have to serve Chris with the petition," says Shipp, "and the court will set a hearing date."
60 comments
Earl Smith is to be congratulated for using the Circuit Court - that is, going through the legal system - to remove Chris Dumler from office. Ed Barber had the appropriate response in the end. Dumler needs to rebuild his life elsewhere. He cannot do that here. There are too many citizens and voters who will never trust him again, and he wears the face of "criminal". Who wants a lawyer who can't keep himself out of jail? Who would re-elect him should he ever run for office again?
Classic left-wing tactic: Use the court to do what it will not do the democratic way.
The reason nobody has "fixed" this is because the voters should decide who represents them not Board memebers from other districts marginaizing him for political gain nor zealots from outside the district.
recusing oneself from votes is very common. Being stripped from committees is an affront to the voters in his district and he can still read the minutes and even attend the meetings as a citizen.
the only material adverse actions are done by people who have no respect for the rule of law and the judge will hopefully admonish the other Board members for their irresponsible behavior in thier attempts to sabatoge him.
What actually takes in place in these "sub-committees" ... Mr. Dumler was removed from:
* The audit committee, which meets once a year, to review the auditor-prepared audit, let's see, ummm, a few weeks before the full Board gets it and acts on it;
* The Fiscal Impact Committee, which hasn't met in, umm, two years;
* The Rivanna River Basin Commission, which is a quasi-governmental organization that is not mentioned anywhere in the "powers or duties of the Board" anywhere in the Code of VA, nor does it make recommendations to the Board.
* The TJPDC, ditto.
The business of the "Board" happens at the "Board." AND he was removed. Has anyone heard of the doctrine of "contributory negligence?" C'mon, people. Think.
Way to go, Citizen Smith!
Wonder if he gets to "burglar" around the jail on weekends. His new weekend drill.
I hope the judge will understand that many Scottsville district constituents, and citizens throughout the county, are and will continue to be uncomfortable having any dealings with a violent sexual offender, which Dumler is by his own admission under oath. This is particularly true of the 20-30% of women and girls who are survivors of gender violence, as well as the many caring men who understand how ugly gender violence is, whether as a matter of morality and principle or because they have family members or friends who are survivors.
Thus, Dumler's continued presence on the BOS effectively disenfranchises a large percentage of the citizenry, in addition to being a constant and very unfortunate encouragement to those men and boys who are prone to commit and/or excuse acts of violence against women/girls.
I look forward to Mr. Dumler's removal from office. His political career is over. He would be well advised to change his name and begin a new life elsewhere.
Either that or the judge will follow the law and let him stay.
Come on Lisa, please do at least a tiny bit of research on the subject of recalls in Virginia. This isn't C'ville Weekly for chrissakes! No mention of Portsmouth Mayor James Holley III in an article that purports to give a bit of historical context to the Dumler petition?
Chris Dumler has hired a PR firm to represent him during his legal fiascoes, had a law firm - for a while - to mount his "vigorous" defense, then he said he had no money to defend himself in court (first he said it would cost $100K, then $45K, and finally $40K). I hear he is out shopping for a law firm to represent him at this forthcoming hearing. Hmmmm..no money to support his defense against felony Forcible Sodomy charges, but will he now spend money defending himself against this petition? If he's out shopping for lawyers, what happened to all his lawyer buddies? And if he's out of money for his legal defense, who's paying for the attorney for this case?
Good catch, not buyin' it. Holley, the Mayor of Portsmouth VA was recalled not once, but twice! The last time 3 years ago for the horrible sin of verbally abusing an assistant and having the assistant do personal errands on city time. Signatures were gathered and a the judge ruled for a recall election and he was recalled. The petition alleged his inability to competently lead the city. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W._Holley,_III
Take note Bill Marshall. Take note, Chris Dumler, and remember, "Hell hath no fury..."
Cvillian, I guess you and I see something different in the Holley story.
1. His constituents apparently liked him well enough to put him back in office. VA's answer to Marion Barry?
2. His case stands out not because someone tried to remove a Virginia politician from office, but because it was one (well two technically) of the rare successful attempts (funny, he's also black although that couldn't have had anything to do with it could it?).
3. Horrible sin of verbally abusing an assistant? You don't think that goes on regularly in C'ville's City Hall? Personal work on government time? If you don't think that goes on all routinely in both the city and county office buildings well then you are just the sort of investor I'm hoping to find for my next venture.
If competently leading the city were a measure, then not only would we be without a city manager, we'd have no council either.
My money is on Dumler for the long haul.
Mayor Holley was recalled using a provision in the Portsmouth charter which permits recall by referendum. There's nothing in the state law that would permit something similar in Albemarle. Apples and oranges if you ask me.
Suppose a Judge was appointed by one party or the other. You get a petition of at least 10% of the voters of a district saying an elected person was not "doing their job effective". Do you want a Judge to be able to depose the elected person by decree and order a new election? Not being able to depose them but order a new election and they are in office until then? Change the law and say a misdemeanor we can recall you on? Or we are going to change the law and back date it so that it applies to a backdated action. So for misdemeanors that involve X to Z we can recall you on.
I don't care about Dumler but I do care about the process. The signatures are in and assuming they are certified there will be a hearing.
My understanding of the hearing is to determine whether or not Mr Dumler has the ability to carry out his tasks as a Board member. The Judge cannot look at the misdemeanor conviction as a reason to remove him unless that crime has a direct affect on his abilities to do his job. The time in jail is not really a factor since the other board members could spend thier weekends at the beach. His moral character is an issue for the voters and not the court and the fact that it took so long to just garner this many signatures shows that the voters are not as incensed as the vocal few claimed. He has no fiduciary ethics issues and the brazen punishment of the other board members is something that I think a judge would say says more about their lack of character than his. As far as the protests at board meetings and the disruption they want to blame on Dumler I would presume the judge would say that the responsibility to keep order at a public meeting is not his responsibility the same as if people came to protest him for any other reason legitamate or otherwise. For instance, suppose people thought he was framed and came to protest in support of him... should he be removed simply because he is the catylist for distraction.? Because if thats the case then I would imagine the people of Forest Lakes would lke a shot at Boyd for ruining their pond.
I think the judge will look at the law, see that he has complied with the legal adjudication that took place, ignore people from outside his district, see that removing him would reward the Board members who are acting unethically by marginaizing him at the expense of the voters in his district and will rule that he can stay.
A lot of people won't like it but that is the way the system is supposed to work.
If people want to change the recall laws and have a mandatory recall election with "x" numbers of signatures they can lobby for that. Perhaps they could approach Mr Boyd to see if he would sponsor the legislation. I am sure there are enough people who remember that he is the one who threw a wrench into any brokered deal in the begginning of this fiasco by refusing to cut a deal and allowing for a Democrat to replace Dumler if he resigned.
Regardless the system is working as it should. If the Judge rules he should go I will trust that the judge made a proper decision without complaint. Ij ust don't think the law is agianst him at this point.
Bill Marshall, you need to look at the statute again. It doesn't say anything about his "ability to carry out the tasks as Supervisor." It only says that his role as Supervisor has to be materially adversely effected. The law seems to be rather loosely written, so much so as to give a judge wide latitude. Forget about the protesters. On one hand they are a side show, but on the other hand, they reflect a growing loss of the public's trust for Chris Dumler. THAT can also be a "material adverse effect". Can one govern as a representative of a people who no longer trust them? That's just one issue the Judge has to decide.
The part of the law in question is "For neglect of duty, misuse of office, or incompetence in the performance of duties when that neglect of duty, misuse of office, or incompetence in the performance of duties has a material adverse effect upon the conduct of the office,"
It would seem that an official would have to first show a neglect of duty, misuse of office, or incompetence, then, if they did, that specific conduct would have to be shown to have a material adverse effect upon the conduct of the office.
While it is easy to see where conduct in private life is a valid consideration for voters in determining suitability for office, this statute does not seem to address the specific private conduct Chris Dumler has plead guilty to.
I agree with the posters who are concerned about following process. If you don't like how things are working out then change the rules for future conduct. You can't change the rules for past conduct without making the rules themselves meaningless. We need to respect the law even if we don't respect the politician(s).
The BOS and the news media should look to the larger interests of the community and not just to the short term heat of the moment.
Cvillian, he was elected to represent the people but technically once he was elected he can do what he wants and be the worst person on the planet and it is not enough to take him out. That is what elections are for. The public ";losing confidence" could only be truly estalbished with an election because the Judge would most certainly understand the reluctance of people to admit their support of him politically knowing the crazies will do as they have done and accuse anyone who disagrees with their point of view closet rapists.
The accusations hurled at me are proof positive. I have said over and over again that I don't care about him but care about the process and people have rebutted that I think date rape is okay.
So it is my opinion that HIS behavior has not "materially affected" his ability and that any abilities that have been affected are caused by a) an unethical board decision to marginaize him and b) people outside his district sticking thier nose into his districts politics where it does not belong. I believe the Judge will see this and let the situation play out.
The process is more important than this circumstance. It is not like he is a loose rabid pitbull. He is a guy who is in the sights of a lot of people waiting to take him down. He is pretty much no "danger" to anybody.
I don't usually, on most issues, but on this one I agree with Bill Marshall, who in this instance is taking a position that is at extreme odds with many of the loudmouths who normally speak up to express a point of view that is more Marshallian on other issues. The effort to remove Dumler has looked like a politically-motivated witch-hunt from the start, instigated by Republicans who want to snatch his seat on the Board, and then joined by scared Democrats who fear losing their current seats if they don't join the mob. Dumler is not the first in American politics to have a sleazy or illegal sexual past, and there is no reason to assume that his sexual behavior has had any impact on his ability to perform his job (and note that we don't normally, in this country, treat criminal conviction as a lifetime sentence of unemployment). But if we are now going to begin treating those who violate sexual laws and mores as being totally ineligible for public office, I hope we can become consistent in applying that prejudice: under that creed, Republican Senator David Vitter must immediately resign, and Republican congressional candidate Mark Sanford must immediately concede. Think Ken Boyd and crew would agree? Of course not. As they say, we are a Christian nation, and believe in the principle of a second chance. Unless, of course, the actual voters of Scottsville, Dumler's true employers, decide in their democratic wisdom that they'd rather not give him one. He's not entitled to one, and, really, only they should get to decide.
So 2,000 people voted for Dumler. He only got 53% of the vote.
He spent $89,531 on his election. Much mor than twice his opponent.
Of the 90 donors only 8 are from Scottsville District. Pathetic.
These 8 donated about $7,000 of the money spent, some in-kind non-cash. Who cares?
Seems obvious that non-Scottsville District wealthy saw a BOS seat available and bought it.
Scottsville man now get a court ordered revote. Maybe they will get interested in who represents THEM.
Dumler's hearing on the petitions to remove is Tuesday April 2nd at 9:00 a.m. at the County Courthouse before Judge Cheryl Higgins. The Lynchburg Commonwealth's Attorney is representing the petitioners. For those who said it would never get heard - well, it is, and with legal representation.
As of news time today, Chris Dumler hadn't hired an attorney to represent him yet, although he's been shopping around for one since Tuesday! This is interesting since he claimed he didn't have any money to fight his Felony charges. I assume if he does hire an attorney that someone else is going to have to pay for it as his Credit Union is taking him to Court on May 21st at 1:00 p.m. in Charlottesville District Court for a Warrant in Debt (meaning that he didn't pay his note). IRONY ALERT! Dumler beat Norwood for his Supervisor's seat on the basis of Norwood's past debts (he declared bankruptcy) and stated that Mr. Norwoods fiscal problems would disqualify him for the Supervisor's position. Now look!
Chris Dumler, does this now apply to you too? Can an indebted man, being brought before the Court for lack of payment (warrant in debt) be qualified to be a Supervisor now that it is YOU and not your opponent who's in financial trouble? Can you still be the steward of the public funds that you claimed Norwood could not be?
I had been skipping over Bill Marshall (the "coy" indirect defender of Dumler..) but when I read his comment I realized this is the same guy who use to troll..I mean comment on the Progress website as the #1 hater of all republicans in the County. While criticisms are fine, it was his shading of the truth to outright fabrications I always found distasteful. Since the Progress makes you post with facebook BM(or antiboyd among his many alias) can't spew his nonsense as easily or anonymously- so he darkens this portal.
Blaming Boyd for not taking some half baked, behind closed door deal is such a warped perspective from someone who post a distastefulness for political zealots. How anyone can have an issue with an open and public process to replace a resigning Supervisor (which passed easily) is a straight up partisan, unworthy of serious consideration. Make no mistake BM is about stopping the bypass and anyone who supports it is in his cross hairs.
I appreciate "concerned" pointing out that while BM bemoans the out of Scottsville disdain of Albemarle citizens for Dumler - BM ignores that almost all of Dumler money came from out of districts types. BM states that Dumler can do what he wants- not true. Dumler can stay in office until he's removed but he cannot do what ever he wants- the other supervisor have stripped him of much influence now and in the future.
Scottsville residents are already bypassing him and taking their concerns to other Supervisors. That weakens representative government as well.
As to the nonsense that Dumler removal is JUST politically motivated I guess you would have to add the democrats who kick Dumler out of the party and asked him to resign as well as republicans. Add to that woman rights organizations, independents, moralist and others you have pretty much everyone who wants Dumler gone save one- enviro types like Tom Olivier and BM who are scared to death that without Dumler, they might have no chance to kill the western bypass. The only reason Rooker relented is he's playing catchup since his "youthful mistake" comment and he's got to run for re-election.
petition or not ; people will be at BoS meetings
to remind the public that violence against women
will not be tolerated by those we elect and appoint
to hold the public trust.
Bill b, Dumler never had a chance to make a deal because Mr boyd shut it down from the start so even discussing a deal was moot. And if a "deal" had been struck with dumler having a say in his replacment in exchange for his resignation that would not have been unethical and would have been a more "fair and transparent" process than boyd and his cronies handpicking their choice in a back room and installing a puppet to run the table until the next election.
The people of Scottsville appear to not care much who represents their interest. Taxes, land use, schools, parks roads, budget everything is beyond their concerns. Other than Earl Smith begging a few signatures to take to court nobody cares that a jail bird is their Supervisor. Even Mr. Smith was acting almost alone as the politicians fumble about weighing the political power gains.
District has a problem. The future of the people, especially the young women, is entrusted to a man who just doesn't care for them. He places his needs, political and sexual, above everything else and displayes sociopathic traits. And the moral outrage from the Scottsville District is remarkably quiet.
Without Scottsville District calling for Dumlar to be removed, or another Forcable Sodomy charge being filled, the rest of the county better accept Dumlar.
Has Higgins ever ruled against a prominent man accused of sexual assault? In the only case I'm aware of, she bent over backwards to appease the accused, a posture she does not normally take for accused sexual predators.
Ponce no media report backs your claim that Dumler would ever go with the deal. What you are complaining about just happens to be the law. What has actually happen is the entire board-save Dumler- has agreed to a process that does not allow Dumler to hand pick his successor. That would have been a back room deal. How you and BM have turn that fact to mean the opposite would be amusing if it weren't so sadly partisan.
The process that is now in place is the opposite of a back room deal- saying otherwise is just your own bias showing.
billb
so what you are saying is that if Dumler had come forth and announced that he would agree to resign if the Board would agree to appoint Mr X in his place to represent the district because in Mr dumlers opinion Mr X was a person who would be quailified to represnt the district with similar political values as Mr Dumler believed the voters sent him to do that that is LESS transparent and fair than him simply resigning and the three republicans jumping on the chance like jackals to install whatever republican cronie they agree on in an absolute backroom deal?
Your nuts.
Follow the law. The people decide who represents them. The people of the Scottsville District, well those who care, will decide who does or does not represent them.
Uh, concerned, you haven't been reading the news? The JUDGE will decide. YOU follow the law.
Roger the Judge will respond to the petition of the people. He can set a referendum election, if asked. He can remove the Supervisor for cause, if asked. But he cannot act unless the people
ask and only then when following the law.
Roger the Judge will respond to the petition of the people. He can set a referendum election, if asked. He can remove the Supervisor for cause, if asked. But he cannot act unless the people ask and only then when following the law.
Oh BM,(or the poster formerly known as Antiboyd) are you saying that a disgraced supervisor should get to pick his own replacement? Based on what?-certainly not the law or the rules of Albemarle County. Why does Dumler get any say at all-he's resigning because of a disgraceful lack of judgment and a criminal record. Your failure to answer that leaves a gaping hole in your argument that you seem to just want to ignore.
You're such a political hack that you only see this as your side losing clout. Why did Mallek and Rooker agree that there should be an open process? You just can't stand the idea of the bypass so much that you will rant on about Dumler being denied a deal that he never agreed to.
The people of Scottsville elected Dumler over Norwood, they did not just elect a democrat (oops former democrat). They also elected a young white male UVa law school grad- should any of those qualities be required as well? You nor anyone else can prove that his views alone were the reason he got elected by a clear majority of the people of Scottsville. Perhaps he won because he had more money, worked harder or was just better than Norwood. If you want to argue that Dumler replacement has to be better than Norwood than on that we can agree - it would be a long list from which to choose.
You're not nuts just blinded by petty rage.
Understan the BM writes from a communists state. Oops I meant Democratic.
Understand the BM writes from a communists state. Oops I meant Democratic.
bill b
Your inability to understand does not make you right.
Dumler did not have to "resign", so if people wanted him to resign and he was inclined to resign then he most certainly has the "right" to cut a deal since his resignation is 100% his choice and no one elses. You can hate that fact but it won't make it less true. Boyd said "no dice " because he was hedging that public pressure would seal his fate and he could then get to pick the replacement . So the issue became moot. My point was simply that IF Dumler wanted to consider a deal Boyd thwarted it without any regard for those in Dumlers district which was and still is a dik move. I don't know either way whether Dumler would have considered the option but Boyds partisan crap may be why Dumler is still in office.
I don't care about Dumler I care about the process. It is playing out and I think Dumler will be allowed to stay under the law. If "the people" want an easier recall then they need to lobby for stonger legislation.
If I am incorrect in my prediction than I will not complain as long as the law worked and he was not run out of office by people outside his district or the other Board members who are either jockeying for power or saving their own skin at his expense.
The system is working.
and once again, if you read even 10% of my posts you would see that the last thing I am is a liberal or a democrat... just ask "democracy".. he will be happy to tell you how conservative my thoughts are...
There's a lot of great points on this comment thread. There's a lot of bickering on this comment thread. There's a lot of interesting "interpretations" on this comment thread. I would like to say just a few things involving the petition and my stance on what's happening. I like BM have nothing personal against Mr. Dumler. I have spoken up for the man at different times and will continue to do so when I see fit. I and a handful of good people collected over 400 signatures in 35 days. We did this using only FB post's, occasional announcements on a local radio show (the only one who would help) and handmade signs put out during a signing event. I personally wanted to verify signatures before turning them in and that took a little longer than I thought (I work just like most of us), when I got close to 372 I stopped. During this time I was asked by the Circuit Court if I could wait a few days before turning them in, giving them a chance to collect any data, forms,etc from other parts of the state that have done this before. Also during that time I was approached by a few folks in Glenmore who were collecting signatures and asked me to wait an extra week so they could finish up and add theirs to mine. Now you're up to speed on all that. I truly believe if the major political parties would have responded to my asking for help on this matter, we would have gotten double or triple the signatures in less time. Since the district was re-zoned a few years ago there seemed to be a lot of confusion on who could sign and who couldn't. I did my best, asking each and every one of the folks coming to sign the petition 1) Are you a Scottsville District registered voter? 2) Where did you vote?. Again I am confident I did what was required of me for this process.
As for Chris Dumler having a say in who replaced him if he stepped down. I did not care and was happy to give him that opportunity to have a way out that would be respectable. I even made the suggestion to make the Planning Commissioner he appointed his replacement. This person would already know the procedures and be the close's to Dumlers voting agenda for the District. That suggestion fell on deaf ears due to the continual political bickering among the BOS members.
I will once again state I did not start this process for my own personal gain, to replace Dumler with myself or for a political group or cause. The stories, rumors and allegations, plea deal and the silence of other victims, the process and abuse a woman goes through with our legal system to prove she's right accusing someone of a sexual crime. All of this did not sit well with me and I chose the legal path towards fixing it. I will not speculate if the petition is successful in ousting Mr. Dumler and I will accept whatever the court decides. I will continue to follow up and push for a change to the law. If that were in place today, none of us would be having any of these conversations.
Well BM, you don't explain how a disgraced Supervisor got this "right" to choose his replacement. You just made it up out of whole cloth. How does this make any sense? "Yes I know I'm leaving in disgrace and have shown bad judgment but let me pick someone to replace me- you can totally trust me on this." No precedent or rule or law backs you up on this. I understand this this why can't you?
You don't respond about Mallek or Rooker actions and blame the 3 republicans and with special attention to your hated Boyd. You don't respond to why it has to be a democrat or that Scottesville only elected Dumler over Norwood - they did not elect his system of beliefs or all his opinions but you insist that is what should matter in Dumler's replacement.
I have never called you a liberal but you bring it up because you don't want to address your defense of Dumler is really just about the defeat of the bypass.(which you NEVER deny) Your process argument is weak and unsupported by your actual rhetoric.
I "understand" why you dance around and repeat issues not argued by me because of your paltry facts and thinly veiled partisanship of the NIMBY brotherhood you really support. You are incorrect about so much and you will complain when others don't support your views- you always have and you probably always will. This pseudo noble cause of yours does fill this page with drivel that leaves the debate bereft of substance which you replace with obfuscation and disdain. We are all poorer for it
1) I don't CARE about the bypass as it does not affect anything but my wallet. I think the money could be better spent but it is not worth my time because I would not get to choose the better places.
2) LEGALLY Dumler is the only one who can tender his resignation without all of this petition and court order. Posession of the title is what gives him the "right" It is his tilte to give up. Like I said your inability to understand does not make you right. Also as I said you can hate that FACT but you cannot change it.
3) Richard Nixon finagled a deal to get Gerald Ford to agree to pardon him later in exchange for a speedy resignation. That is the only example I can think of but I am sure there are others.
4) You are the one who says you don't read my posts but you like to accuse me of not blaming the Democrats, well I have accused them of being hypocrites, saving their own skins and following which way the wind blows nearly everytime I discuss Boyds partisan crapfest. If you don't believe the words that are there for everyone to see, choosing to skip my posts and then accusing me of NOT saying something is what does not make sense.
5) If my process argument is weak then how come Dumler is still in office? I am the one who said from the BEGGINING that if they want him gone let the people in his district initiate the petition and see what happens and that is what has happened. While I personally don't think they will suceed I think their efforts are respectable and am glad that Earl followed the law and stood up for what he believes in.
6) I would venture to say i have been among the very few people bringing "substance" to this debate, most people are simply whining that they can't have him run out on a rail despite what the law says.
7) I presume the NIBMY brotherhood is about the bypass. Try and find anything I have ever said on the bypass beyond the wasted money. Its not there. This is and always has been about following the law and not screwing the voters in his district. The archives are there. If you need to keep warm this weekend read through them, I am sure your boiling blood will keep you toasty.
8) You will also not see me saying anything bad about Mr Boyd until this issue came up. I think he is on the wrong side of this by refusing to compromise and even allowing a deal to be braoched. He threw the voters in Scottville District under the bus and that is what makes him a selfish partisan and unworthy of respect. Like I said I call them like I see them even though my positions are conservative.
BM the people choose their representative, Dumler cannot make a deal on his replacement because he has nobody to legally deal with. The existing Va Code is clear and specific in regard to filling a vacancy on the BOS.
Well, I see that Chris has other legal problems too: http://www.wina.com/New-Legal-Troubles-For-Dumler/15920241
Roger - he paid his past due debt that the Credit Union had to file in court to collect $3,100. He paid it 2 days ago. Still, it's not good news, and shows that he's not a very good steward of his own finances, so I wonder how he can be a good steward of ours. He made a pretty big deal out of the debts of his Republican opponent in the election, so what goes around comes around.
Those who are rightly concerned with violence against women
on campus; and in our community owe Earl Smith a debt of gratitude.
Frankly with little help from others ; Earl has followed through with the process..
Plain spoken and to the point; i would hope those we elect and appoint to office
would be as transparent.
Let's get rid of the Board of Supervisors and replace it something that looks less like a hybrid of a corporation and a Soviet commissariat. In any decent society, Dumler would have at least been shamed into leaving his office.
Cvillian: Dumler's recent warrant in debt charge was actually a lot more than $3,100 in the end. It seems he was quite delinquent in paying a note and his payment which he made last week was:
$3,159.08 past due debt
789.77 lawyers fees
54.00 court costs
9.16 interest (my calculation based on APR 17.49% for 6 days).
Total: $4,012.01 (give or take)
That's a pretty small past due debt to incur such a large penalty and credit score damage over. Seems Mr. Dumler isn't such a good "financial steward" as he thinks he is. You see Chris, it was easy to chastise Norwood for his financial problems when you were running against him. How's it feel now?
Maybe Dumler got behind on his bills because of the unexpected legal fees and the undoubted sudden loss of business after the charges. So it seems that he has made it right. How does anyone know that he didn't do everything in his power to get it fixed which should go TO his character not take away from it.
How many of you could take a financial hit of that magnitude and not have to do some scrambling? The fact that it was a self inflicted wound is irrelevant to the accusations as to whether he has been financially respoinsible or not.
@Ponce - 1) He brought this totally on himself by sexually battering a woman WHILE a seated politician 2) "Financial hit of that magnitude"...when his opponent had financial hits, Dumler exploited them so as to win an election. What goes around comes around, Chris! 3) Sure he has made it right, AFTER he was forced too, which is how he has been operating in this world. Witness:
5/15/09 - He was cited for driving with no inspection and had to be FORCED to comply
12/1/09 He was cited for driving with an Expired Registration and AGAIN had to be FORCED to comply, this time with an $86 fine
6/15/10 He was cited AGAIN for driving with an Expired Inspection and had to be FORCED to comply
10/4/12 He was arrested for Forcible Sodomy and after he plea bargained his way to a Sexual Battery charge, he was FORCED to give an apology AFTER he had claimed that the women simply conspired to set him up. No apology rendered UNTIL he was FORCED to comply!
3/21/13 Dumler was charged with a debt he didn't pay and had to be FORCED to pay it in a court of law. Almost $1,000 was court costs, interest and lawyers fees!!! Don't you think that an attorney would KNOW there would be costs incurred if the debt went in to collection, but even facing a $1,000 penalty was not enough to make him pay. He had to be FORCED to pay and then incur the punishment. Do you not see a pattern of behavior here? Now he's going to court tomorrow, April 2, at 9:00 a.m., to face a petition movement to be FORCED from office because he would not choose the penalty-less way out, which is to resign. The penalty? It's all around him. Loss of money now (this warrant inn debt is a case in point), loss of future earnings due to his sullied reputation, loss of public respect, loss of trust. It's interesting Karma, Ponce, that the man who would FORCE a woman against his will is now being FORCED to do all these things against his will, including going to Court, and going to Jail.
That should have read: "It's interesting Karma, Ponce, that the man who would FORCE a woman against HER will is now being FORCED to do all these things against HIS will, including going to Court, and going to Jail."
Cvillian, obsessively stalking someone like you seem to be doing is hardly an indication of a healthy frame of mind. You could really use another hobby. Next thing you know, you'll be losing sleep over Dumler's long form birth certificate and college transcripts.
Civillian, I didn't say the guy didn't bring it on himself, I just don't buy the allegation that he had an intention of defauding someone by not paying his loan. I think he got in a bind and tried to make it right perhaps as best as he could. Sometimes that means fixing it at the last moment as funds became aviailable.
You are giving the girl the benefit of the doubt that she didn't exxagerate the allegation to get even with him for obviously lying to her about having a girlfriend and the prosecuter had to make a deal because of the texts he said he had proving that she was going to "get even"
Should we open that can of worms?
She said "we (meaning the victims) have a stake in you going down in flames." So would any victim. Where is this garbage about "getting even" coming from Ponce?
Bill Marshall / Ponce is still pushing his semi-literate "poor Chris Dumler is being oppressed" mantra, I see. Good luck with that, champ.
Judge Higgins will look at the facts in the pleadings, hear arguments on Dumler's limited effectiveness in office (due to his own actions), and then make a ruling consistent with the statute. I literally lawled at BM's assertion that it was the five other board members (all five of 'em, huh?) who have acted unethically, limiting the board's ability to do its business.
Please don't ever go away, BM. Your contributions are pure comedy gold.
I plubis , if this were 1975 and he had come out as GAYand they did the same things to him what would your defense of their behavior be?
I think that they all had a responsibility to censure him from the begginning and then to back off in the interest of getting the counties business done. By punishing him and attempting to limit his ability to CONTRIBUTE they are effectively denying all those in the Scottsville district due representation not just those women afraid to contact Dumler. It is rude at best and unethical at worst.
That doesn't excuse what he did but it is a perfect example of two wrongs don't make a right.
@not buyin it: "Stalking"? Hardly. I do not think twenty minutes of online research in easily-obtained public records is stalking. I'm doing what the party (Democratic Party) should have done two years ago when Dumler threw his hat into the ring. Why did the party not vet candidate Dumler further? Had they seen the "eluding the police" infraction, they might have thought twice about his nomination. And the laundry list of infractions? At least they could have brought them forward with his candidacy. But they didn't. Shame also belongs to the Teapublicans who did not do opponent research. We all could have been saved a lot of trouble had they done their job. Look what happened to the party: Chairman L'Herrou is moving to Richmond and Cynthia Neff is no longer Vice Chairman and Chris Dumler has been kicked out of the party. The whole Dumler situation has caused much disarray in the County Committee. They have been inept in their candidate vetting, and then their support of him after he was arrested and convicted. Democrats should be the party of protecting women, not of protecting sexual batterers of women. So don't lecture me about stalking. The truth did not come out when it should have, but I'll make certain it does now. If you think for one moment that the victim(s), alleged or admitted, and the electorate who all feel duped by Mr. Dumler do not have a vendetta, then you are ignoring the obvious. Please spare me your snarking about those who would demand justice in a system lacking it.
I think Cvillian and Ponce ought to meet at the next CLAW tournament and watch her whoop him good. Yowza!
"If you think for one moment that the victim(s), alleged or admitted, and the electorate who all feel duped by Mr. Dumler do not have a vendetta, then you are ignoring the obvious."
....... While setting aside the word "duped" for a moment it is good to see that the truth is coming out and that this IS about a vendetta and retribution and punishment and that your interest in that vendetta is what drives you as opposed to the rules of law in a civilized society.
The guy may be a pig, but people from outside his district need to punish him outside his job so that the people in his District are not punished by YOUR need for retribution.
We will see how the actual written rule of law plays out. If he has to go, so be it, if not then you can hold your breath and disturb meetings or you can lobby the legislature to get the law changed.
The system is working.
Ponce and Jordan - You're falling for Chris's apparently too-expensive lost cause PR campaign. The "we" in that text message clearly referred to "the people of Scottsville." Dumler intentionally took the second half of the sentence wildly out of context. And everyone bought it. More proof that wild speculation is nothing more than a way to keep busy. Not a way to get to the truth. Story is here: http://www.newsplex.com/home/misc/Woman-Involved-in-Dumler-Sex-Case-Spea...
@ I. Publius
It is interesting that you reference Bill Marshall/Ponce as the same commenter here. I went back and looked at every post since March 8, the first weekend of jail time for Chris Dumler. It is interesting that there are NO posts from Bill Marshall or Ponce de Leon between the hours of 6:30 p.m. on any Friday and 6:30 p.m. the following Sunday. It's interesting that prior to the weekend of March 8 that Bill Marshall posted on weekends up until then. But don't believe me, go look for yourself. You'll be hard pressed to find anything by them posted during a BOS meeting either, or when Dumler has been in Court. Coincidence?
Cute Roger, but is it not obvious to you that both Bill Marshall and Ponce are quite conservative in general and that both have been posting under those names for quite along time?
Your sleuthing is about as good as that of "Nancy Drew" who used to post all the time and was frequently incorrect in what he/she posted. Lots of people post from work and if you follow any thread on this site, you will often see that they lie dormant over the weekend and then pick back up on Monday morning.