At this meeting, there were many concerning and outrageous moments. Rather than write it all out as I usually do, I’ve assembled clips from the public meeting* to share with you to best illustrate these moments for yourself, with minimal commentary from me. They really do tell their own story.
At the end, I’ll offer a summary.

In the video below, you see people in the chambers in support of Councilor Elmore, against the Recall effort…

In the clip below, Councilor Elmore brings ‘receipts’ she’s dug up to show the voting record, tellingly, of just Councilor Morrison and myself so she can make an assertion about our voting record on OPWC grants. Here you’ll hear my response and later you’ll hear Councilor Morrison’s:

The next video shows her oft-told lamentation about longtime residents ‘nostalgia’ and this native Whitehallian’s response:

Finally, there is THIS outrage:

Note that nowhere does she point to actual proof of racism, instead using only an assumptive correlation to voting records for her inference, and why is that? Both Councilor Morrison and myself offered up logical, understandable explanations for our votes, those which weren’t given the respect and consideration she owed them.
Both Councilor Morrison and myself have been the greatest source of healthy questioning and skepticism as citizen representatives when it comes to the Administration’s actions and policies, AS IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY (which also includes independent critical analysis, that which may not benefit the mayor, or her).
I am aware this displeases some.
When it comes to ‘Team Forward Together’ I consider Councilor Elmore its quarterback and most ardent defender. As such then I ask myself, ‘Would she really stoop that low to imply that the two councilors who hold our mayor most accountable, do so out of racism and not their job?’ Why?! Did she make it simply because he’s black and we’re white? Is that the simplest quotient when it comes to racism?

Where is the proof that he and I have exerted actions and opinions which point to our being racist outside of ours and the mayor’s different skin colors?
It would be like me inferring that every time a heterosexual hoved into my view that didn’t like my taste or viewpoints or policies only felt so because they’re just bigoted against gays . (?!) That of course is ridiculous and self-defeating (and exhausting too!) as a human being living in a society with everyone else.**

The fact is that, in my opinion, Team Forward Together wants everything they want, without question, to maintain an illusion that the mayor is a perfect picture of an extraordinary leader for the sake of everyone who is pinning their hopes and dreams and fortunes on him. That picture which I, as a realist, reject. Anything else that doesn’t adhere to and serve that illusion is unacceptable and WILL NOT be tolerated, even if they have to improperly apply racist inferences on those who aren’t, simply to help them achieve it. It is a troubling and harmful tactic***, particularly from some who, as the Legislative branch, self-servingly ignored important ethical conflicts which harm the Public Trust in order to be monetarily embroiled with the Administrative branch through team campaigning.
Simply said, these inferences she makes are completely out of line. They are detrimental to our jobs, making them even more difficult than they already are. They create a roadblock to collaboration, they are corrosive to the healthy movement of our government and the mature, considerate compromises we take for the ultimate goal of all of us…which is not to make any ONE person the success, but to make our city, our community the successful beneficiary of that collaborative work. This kind of unfounded, divisive rhetoric merely self-serves the ‘team’ and the illusion they wish to portray but harms the city or community the ‘Team’ say they want to serve. It was irresponsible to baselessly invoke it.

Thank you

*The clips were assembled as to narrative of a particular subject or situation. If your wish is to watch the entirety of the meeting to catch these snippets in real time, I invite you to click on the link below. Otherwise, I waded through all the chaff to get to the wheat myself which I have presented to you here.
https://whitehalloh.portal.civicclerk.com/event/19/media

** There is this from Google AI Assist:
Several individuals and sources have commented on the issue of falsely asserting racism and its potential impact. Here are some quotes and perspectives:

• An opinion piece in the Charlotte Observer in 2019 suggested that falsely accusing good people of being racist or white supremacists hinders political progress. It argues that such accusations make it difficult to address actual racism and instead create division.
• Angelica Hopes, author: Her quote addresses the broader issue of false accusations, stating that while those who make them may be driven by negative traits, the victims of such aggressions ultimately possess truth and goodness, which she believes will prevail.
• A user on Quora in 2016 described being called a racist simply for disagreeing with someone’s position and providing evidence that their information was incorrect. This illustrates how disagreements can sometimes lead to false accusations of racism. 

These perspectives highlight that while combating genuine racism is vital, false accusations can be damaging, impede progress, and harm individuals. It’s important to differentiate between actual racism and misunderstandings or disagreements and to engage in open dialogue to address issues of race and promote understanding

***It is unfortunate that so much is pinned on Michael Bivens’ success, for right or wrong (even to the point of unjustly levying groundless attacks on others to propagate that desire), for he is only a man. As I and all of us ever are. I am no savior for anyone and neither is he. He must be rightly and fairly judged in his position for the efforts that he brings forth and, through collaboration, succeed with or fail. That is the measure of any person; man/woman, black/white, gay/straight, etc. Does anyone really think that someone is all that simply because of their skin color?

Skin color to determine achievement is absolutely archaic and absurd.

The fact is that there are both great and awful men of ALL races. I have admired and abhorred them each according to their character. Simply because I am white and gay does not mean that I lean into people with those specifics in which to give admiration. The people who I’ve long admired exemplify the greatest traits mankind has to offer through the entire spectrum of humanity; from Dr. King to Harvey Milk, from Barbara Jordan to Abraham Lincoln, from Larry Kramer to John Kennedy to Betty Friedan. My appreciation for anyone has only to do with my admiration for their character. Full. Stop. If saying this then makes me a ‘hit dog’, then I resent and reject such a chilling condemnation disguised as the simplified, improperly-used adage that it is.

The other night, at-Large Councilor Lori Elmore made some assertions from the council dais. She claimed facts and data but all I heard were opinions. As such, I wanted to take just a moment to refute her campaign year claims. Let me go piece by piece. First there is this nonsensical business about my taking the oath of office:

Here I am swearing to uphold that oath of office:

Secondly, there is this:

Regarding my ‘encouragement’ of the citizens to referendum, I refer you to the Woda-Cooper/Maplewood and Main part of this equation which I’ve already shared at length in a prior post, seen here, starting at ‘Fact #3’ (Which Councilor Elmore played her part in):
https://ward1blog.com/2024/12/30/mayor-bivens-public-claims-regarding-my-character-and-actions-my-response/
As for the Fairway project, any and all help that I have offered them was simply because they asked me to after claiming their own representative, one Lori J Elmore, wasn’t. That is the hard reality I have heretofore remained silent on because I didn’t want to call her out on that publicly (out of deference for the office and professional courtesy) but, after her continual public haranguing of me, I have now felt justified in setting that consideration aside.
So, is it encouragement that I’m giving the residents OR is it my working to ensure their RIGHT to referendum, per our Charter, that should be available to them without all the constant, extraneous ’emergency measures’ blocking that right?
Ultimately, in this speech, to me, she sounds upset by the citizen’s Charter power being utilized. Imagine, the audacity of me to remind citizens of that power available to them and to work to see it ensured. Clearly I’ve lost my mind.

The overuse of emergency measures in Whitehall government (in this case) seems to benefit two entities, the Administration and the developers. It is my assertion that the citizens rights should play a part in that as well, AS IS THEIR LAWFUL RIGHT. It disrespects the citizens and their rights when, time and again, the Administration overuses ’emergency measures’, thereby quashing the rights of the citizens they’re supposed to be serving. As the separate branch of government representing the people then, it seems our sworn obligation to use our power to ensure their rights are properly provided them.
And all this from the person who claims to be such a Charter proponent as evidenced in her testimony at the Franklin County Board of Elections:

Thirdly, there is this:

That’s a general statement of criticism, clearly meant to simplistically incite people without the necessary depth of narrative or receipts to back up the claim. Is she hoping uninformed people will simply take her at her word, this same person whose animus for me is on display at Council? Is this opinion of me coming from a reasonable criticism or is it merely emanating from that animus? If it is animus, it deserves to be roundly ignored due to its hostile source. If it is reasonable criticism, then I demand it be backed up with contextual instances and receipts, like those which I’ve always offered.
As to ‘controversy’, what she is speaking of is actually, as a citizen or elected councilor, my refusal to allow my government or its elected officials a pass in troubling efforts and behavior which rightly attract my attention. Therefore, in my estimate, she mischaracterizes the ‘controversy’ then, for it is not my pointing out the wrong I see which is the ‘controversy’ but rather, what they’re doing and their reaction to my pointing it out, that creates the ‘controversy’, an important distinction. Period.
To understand, the reality of what has and does go on in Whitehall government is complex. It is not as simple as saying, …”he revels in controversy and is opposed to progress…he’s done it with the previous administration and is attemptning to do it now”. The truth of the matter is complex but when disseminating that complexity doesn’t serve one’s self-centered aims, then the course of action is just to throw out some simplistic propaganda in order to get what you want which, in my opinion, in this case, is to defeat my re-election, plain and simply (and this from the council dais…).
As to her comment, “Every councilor on this dais upholds the health and safety of this city to move it forward, not to have it stuck or taken back to nostalgia”; where does one even start with that?
Is the ‘health and safety’ of Whitehall tied to housing and projects brought forth, regardless of their sense or reason or viability? ANY development, ANY schemes and plans MUST be supported FOR the ‘health and safety’ of Whitehall? That wasn’t the case recently when a project’s feasibility was questioned wanting to go up at Rosemore and Langley or when a mechanical operation wanted to open on Main Street.
Should this demand for the ‘health and safety’ of our city displace the rights of the citizens?
Was our ‘health and safety’ never really healthy or safe? Did having a status quo actually make our community sick and dangerous? The reality is that her sentence is simply nonsensical, as is her claim that not approving projects (i.e. because of public outcry or tax incentives which ultimately come back to haunt the citizens) is done simply to keep the city in a nostalgic rut. The fact is that there are several points of criteria for projects in this city (which include citizen input) which citizen representatives have an obligation to use to make the most well-rounded decisions for the community. It is not enough that the Administration (and its ‘team’) and the developers want it but, that the other boxes for those criteria are also checked off: Is it right for the neighborhood? How are tax incentives affecting the citizen’s pocketbooks, etc.? That then should inform whether the property, for instance, should be allowed rezoning or given tax incentives, etc. from the council. The meme below was created by me in my 3rd attempt at office in 2019, listing all the things that I am for. Notice the first thing on the list; the word ‘reasonable’…

Finally, there is this:

So, she says there seems to be confusion as to advocating upholding the oath of office, and then shares that oath with everybody. What that ‘confusion’ is which isn’t ‘advocating upholding the oath of office’, she doesn’t make clear. Again, complexity of an issue, complexity of my job and its duties are given short shrift here so, how can one know, with precision, exactly what she meant? I say it is simply more gamesmanship to incite outcry against me than to provide the public with proof of any detectable wrong, which brings me to this:
It is my assertion that Councilor Elmore is creating a false narrative simply to drum up faux election-year outrage in order to denigrate me for the benefit of team ‘Forward Together’ at the polls this November. THEY have an agenda and they mean to see it succeed. Councilor Dixon is mucking that up with his pesky questions and demands for accountability and transparency that favor the citizens. This does not bode well for ‘Forward Together’s’ aims.
What to do, what to do?
Will they try harder to collaborate with all of council on projects OR will they continue with their reliance on team player’s consent to pass what they want? Will they work on their agenda so its more flexible and friendly to the citizens and their Charter rights OR will it just be easier to get rid of the person who is (in service to the people he represents) holding them and their plans accountable? When the mayor says things like, “All I need is four votes”, it gives you a feeling for what the answer might be.
So then, it is my belief that this election year is gonna get heated, only due to the level of frustration and outrage team ‘Forward Together’ has for those who aren’t, don’t or want to simply jump on board the way they want it to be done. It was what was behind government insiders trying to keep me off council for three election attempts. It was when they finally exposed themselves publicly and righteously pissed off the citizens of Ward 1 that the people decided I was the better choice in the race. As they witness my efforts for them on council, I see their support of me growing, of which I am very grateful but, understand, as it grows, so will the attacks. Your job is to determine from where they come and their merit.
So then, ultimately, the decision lies with the citizens who decide what is right and best for them and not the elected officials.

Thank you for your time.

On Tuesday, August 6th, at the Whitehall City Council meeting, several people showed up regarding some incident reported to have taken place in front of our mayor’s home. What I heard during the meeting was that someone had showed up in front of the mayor’s home and was alleged to have harassed an elderly person on the porch. A few people spoke: upset was expressed at this confrontation with the elderly person, the mayor’s position as Whitehall’s first black mayor was referenced and the general sense that I got was that the event had been racial in nature, a form of intimidation/terrorization and that the mayor wasn’t wanted or appreciated in Whitehall. I was alarmed to hear that there could have been any such racial incident in Whitehall and so, I was appalled. Because I knew nothing about the story though, I listened intently, ultimately not wanting to comment too definitively until I’d been able to get all the facts of what happened. As a sitting Councilman, (and being addressed on the topic during Council) I felt that it was important to make certain that I and the community was apprised of all the information available so we could all have a fuller understanding, for the community’s benefit. After all, knowledge and communication are keys to better understanding*.
I have filmed the comments made by the public and council during the public meeting, only on the topic at hand, for convenience’s sake. The only comments made on this specific topic are by those in the video. No one else present spoke publicly on the issue. Watch the video first and I’ll proceed after that.

So, in the video one surmises that a person had showed up in front of the mayor’s home and engaged with an elderly person sitting on the porch. The claims are that this person took photos, and the word harassment was used to characterize the incident.
While the topic presented was sensitive, I (and I hope every other person) wanted to know the entirety of the story so as to make the most thorough judgement possible based on the facts, for that is vital, particularly given the sensitivity which rightly surrounds race issues. With that then, at the meetings end, I spoke with the mayor about what had happened. He gave me a cursory outline which started to open understanding. A truck hired by the F.O.P. (Fraternal Order of Police) with a billboard on it with signage about the current issues between the F.O.P. and Police Chief Crispen/Mayor Bivens had parked in front of the mayor’s home. The driver had engaged the elderly person and had taken photos. I asked if the police had been called over the truck parked in front of his home and he said ‘no’ because there was nothing illegal that happened. (FYI: One has a legal right to do as they did, and that’s what it indeed was…legal.) This then was all I asked the mayor and all the info he gave me on the matter. As a result then of the information he shared, the fuller picture started to come into clearer focus because, during the meeting, there had been no mention of this key information regarding the F.O.P. or a billboard truck. While this brought me more information, I had lots of questions and wanted to know more.

Once I got home, I made calls and found out that the mayor’s wife had written about it on a Facebook post that F.O.P Capital City Lodge #9 President Brian Steel had created on Whitehall 411, so, I went there and looked at the post. In her comment she was clearly upset and expressed alarm for the elder having been caused distress by the truck/driver’s visit. There was one photo of the driver standing on the sidewalk in front of the truck. Because the mayor’s wife had made her feelings pretty clear over a couple FB comments, I felt it sufficed for information from her, so I let that stand. As a result of this, I then made a call straight to the horse’s mouth in this issue; the F.O.P..
I was told by them that indeed they’d hired the truck to drive around Yearling Road and Whitehall itself but that the billboard was never supposed to go to the Mayor’s house. I was also informed that when they learned it had been and that the elderly person had been bothered by it, they immediately ordered it removed from the site.
I got the number then for the man who runs the media company that facilitates the billboard campaign, and he said that the drivers of these trucks are trained to be non-confrontational and not to engage. He was very specific about this because, as he told me, their signs can be controversial in politics or other topics and therefore be inflammatory with the public’s emotions.
He also informed me that photos indeed had been taken. According to the gentleman, the billboard truck business asks that the driver take photos of the vehicle in front of the various locations where the truck is driven so as to demonstrate the job being accomplished, that is all. He said that they weren’t there taking photos of people, they were there taking photos of the truck parked at a location. So then, I was assured that the photos taken were in no way for any controversial reasons or to inflame those who live where the vehicle was parked. They are merely used and kept within the business, only, to show the job had been done.
So then, the facts: the Fraternal Order of Police is currently engaged in a battle over issues with the Chief of police/city of Whitehall administration, headed by the CEO of Whitehall, our Mayor, Michael Bivens. As I learned in New York City, when it comes to politics, everything legal is on the table and the multitudes of artists living there used that fully to their advantage when fighting for what they believed in, men/women, black/white, gay/straight, etc. Therefore, it is up to each entity to decide how they are going to fight for their side of the issue. In this case, the F.O.P decided to ramp up the pressure against the administration in whatever legal creative form they chose in order to be heard. That is utterly fair (and their right) in a political battle. Alternately, the mayor has the ability to do and respond as he sees fit too. The F.O.P claims not to have ordered the truck to sit outside the mayor’s home and claim that once they learned it had been, ordered it removed. They claim it is their intention to increase the pressure on the administration and rally support and visibility for their cause. This is what they did and what they hoped to accomplish through their efforts that day. There was no evidence or logical reasoning I heard or found that said the parking of the billboard truck was in any way intended to intimidate, terrorize or personally harm anyone or done so due to a hatred for Mayor Bivens’ skin color. Having these facts then are vital to give us the proper and fuller information we need in order to have the fullest facts of the matter so our thoughts and opinions on the issue ring truest and most righteous. What opinions, judgements and disagreements that now arise as a result of the fuller understanding of the matter can now be made in a clearer fashion having greater insight into the entirety of events. I felt that was important to provide.

From my own standpoint I will say this: what the F.O.P. did fell under their constitutionally protected 1st amendment rights, whether people like their tactics or not (like the tee-shirts and plane they flew over the truck fest). Outside of that truth, if people want to have community conversations about ‘appropriateness’ and consideration regarding relatives and people at their home, those can certainly be had, now and in the future but, when it comes to politics (which this falls under), it is not our emotions which rule the rightness of our political actions but, our Constitution, that which guides us as to what is legally within our rights as citizens and what is not. Period.

Due then to the fuller understanding the facts of the various events that day has brought me, (which we didn’t get at the meeting) and the understandings those facts have brought out for their having been, in my opinion, I simply cannot find this to be anything other than a political event.**
As a sidenote, on its own topic, I have to say that if there are racists in Whitehall, I ask that the ugly intolerance of those individuals be theirs to own, that which must be addressed individually and not be used to unfairly indict an entire community, just as no community or group should ever be judged whole cloth on the actions of a few or some.

Thank you for your time.
*While exploring the whole truth and facts for fuller understanding are my motivation for this writing, doing so is not meant to disrespect anyone nor suggest that other’s opinions are lesser or wrong. Everybody has a right to their opinion, but I felt getting all the information out there was important to the story and had to be done. So too, these claims had been made publicly so I thought it only fair and right that these additional facts be provided publicly too.

**If there is clear evidence of specific racist words/actions/threats, I would like to know exactly what they were.

There have been many a discussion and criticism from the citizens of Whitehall concerning these measures designed to attract businesses, their use increasing then the tax base and raising the level of a municipality’s health, vitality and viability. Some feel that its ‘giving away the farm’, some feel it’s an unnatural way to attract businesses into the community. All the arguments have their various merits.

A few weeks ago I sat down with Whitehall’s city administrator, Zach Woodruff to disuss this very topic. While I have my own viewpoints on the matter, I wanted to give him the opportunity to present his case on the matter, to hear him out. It ended up being a two hour meeting.

His viewpoint, as someone trying to bring Whitehall back from the low points it found itself in until just a few years ago (and with vestiges of that still clinging) is that; he views these things (TIFS, tax abatements) as just some of the “tools” available to create the situations that are advantageous for a better future for Whitehall. I, like a lot of others, concern ourselves with the loss of income for the city and/or the schools. Some feel that it puts the burden on citizens, picking up the slack in levies and surcharges, etc. I can’t say that I disagree with those viewpoints or that I haven’t had my own issues with these tools myself. We argued these things back and forth and had a spirited conversation as a result, the best one I’d ever had with Mr. Woodruff.

So, as with many complex issues, the answers are never so simple, despite my or others wishing them so. It’s often six of one, half dozen of another but, this I do understand; Rot and degradation can come so speedily and easily to a community. Getting and keeping the rosy and robust health of a city and community takes hard work, not just to obtain it but to keep it. For while one is busy obtaining or keeping that success, the civic generators of chaos and deterioration to a community are always active. We have seen it in Whitehall over the last 30 years and the efforts of administrations to slow or halt its progress. That degradation which still persists in our community to this day. Facebook is rife with the tales of other civic degradations such as auto break-ins, speeding, behaviors in our shared stores, lurking by strangers on property at night, littering, etc. That degradation continues to threaten the success we all want and have fought for, so…

While I and others may have varied issues with the use/overuse of TIF’s and tax abatements, after giving it careful and broad consideration, I’ve come to the viewpoint of Mr. Woodruff; that we must use all the tools available to us to make Whitehall the success, again, that we all want it to have and that we know it can have. So then, I’ve come to the conclusion that in order to fight degradation to the community, we must do what we may in order to have the success we all want in the community while at the same time fighting against the degradation that threatens to eat away at that success and bring it all crashing back down to ground zero, yet again.

For that reason, and that reason only, I support the administration’s use of the TIF’s and tax abatements as they utilize them. I wish there were another avenue but given the understanding I have of the issue as I’ve described it above, I see no other path. If there is anyone that would like to disabuse me of this viewpoint, I invite you to do so.

Thank you

Gerald Dixon
Council, Whitehall, Ward 1