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.