56 Responses to “3rd District candidate used youth program to make signs for campaign”

1. posted by anonymous at October 12, 2008 8:11 pm :
   

   I would not call that a minor issue. It is against state policy to do any campaign stuff without permission.
   Those kids were paid with MY money. State money. If Mr. Davis asked me for 10.00 I would not gvie it to him so why can he take it through the backdoor??

   I have friends who were in this last state cut, I bet they would have something to say about it to. That is called fraud, and if people stopped wasting and doing illegal things with state funds then maybe at least one of my friends would still be employed.

2. posted by Anonymous at October 13, 2008 6:48 am :
   

   The program was created to provide incarcerated youth the opportunity to obtain skills and become productive citizens with those skills, correct? Allowing them to be apart of the AMERICAN political process is probably more valuable than the couple of dollars that the state pays them per hour.

   Personally, I do not believe that it was wrong to allow incarcerated youth to have the work experience of the DESIGN aspect of different campaign materials. What a great opportunity for them that they would probably not get from many other political candidates because those candidates would not want that type of association.

3. posted by Lauren S. at October 13, 2008 7:42 am :
   

   Moderator (John) - if you cannot post without bias, then I suggest you perhaps call on Jim Lehrer for advice. You did not use any biased words when posting about the mailout story, in which Jonathan Davis accused Chris Hilbert of breaking campaign rules.
   While it is convenient and even encouraged that posters have debate, it is not convenient nor ethical for you, as moderator of this site, to insert opinion into the tagline of this story. I ask that you remove the word “minor” in an effort to deliver news, in an ethical manner, to northside residents.
   If you need further convincing of the gravity of this situation, I suggest you call Barry Green, director of the Department of Juvenile Justice, and ask him if this is a minor rule that was broken within DJJ.

4. posted by Doug at October 13, 2008 9:54 am :
   

   I can’t believe Mr. Davis would be so arrogant to use state resources for his own benefit and try to justify it as a “job trainng” experience. There’s no doubt his actions constitute fraud and frankly, based on the Virginia Criminal Code, it looks like he may have committed a felony.

   VA Criminal Code 18.2 - 112.1: Misuse of public assets
   Any full-time officer, agent, or employee of the Commonwealth, or of any city, town, county, or any other political subdivision who, without lawful authorization, uses or permits the use of public assets for private or personal purposes for anything other legitimate government interest when the value of such use exceeds $1,000 in any 12-month period, is guilty of a Class 4 felony.

   And, HOW CAN HE SAY HE DIDN’T KNOW HOW THE $2 HOUR WAGE WAS PAID? HOW STUPID IS THIS GUY? I MEAN, GOOD GOD IS HE THAT DUMB THAT HE DOESNT’ REALIZE WE WERE THE ONES WHO PAID THOSE KIDS??????

   Doesn’t anybody else think it’s ridiculous for Mr. Davis to say this is a job training program, but then personally benefit from the work of these wards? He says he’s talking about job training needs in his campaign and to me it’s frightening that he actually thinks he’s in the right on this one and that he’s actually really providing a benefit to these kids and the community.

   That level of arrogance is beyond comprehension!

5. posted by Steve at October 13, 2008 11:21 am :
   

   This is far from being a minnor issue. Why this tag line added to the story, “minor” by the Moderator?

   I am very concerned about Mr. Davis judgement.

6. posted by John at October 13, 2008 11:35 am :
   

   Thanks for the comments, all. I apologize for the appearance of convenience, bias or a lapse of ethics on my part — the reality is that I was posting this story late last night and threw a last minute introductory line in to set-up the TD piece. The word “minor” was not intended to be editorial. I don’t offer that as an excuse; merely an explanation.

7. posted by Doug at October 13, 2008 2:27 pm :
   

   This is in response to Anonymous’ (posting #2) statement that allowing the incarcerated youth to be part of the American political process is probably more valuable than the couple of dollars that the state pays them per hour.

   This is isn’t an issue about exposing these kids to the political process, it’s about Jonathan Davis’ abuse of his position, his exploitation of these kids for his own personal benefit and a complete and total disregard for taxpayers dollars.

   If you really believe that exposing these kids to the political process is more important that how taxpayers dollars are spent, well then why don’t we allow all the political candidates for mayor, city council and school board to have their campaign design and printing done by this kids.

8. posted by Lucy Gandeline at October 13, 2008 6:23 pm :
   

   In addition to Steve’s posting on the violation of Virginia Election Law and Doug’s posting on Mr. Davis’ misuse of public assets, he has also violated the Virginia Conflicts of Interest Act (2.2-3103). Specifically, the section on prohibited conduct states that:

   “No officer or employee of a state or local governmental or advisory agency shall solicit or accept money or other thing of value for services performed within the scope of his official duties, except the compensation, expenses or other remuneration paid by the agency of which he is an officer or employee.”

   I think it’s about time that Mr. Davis accept responsibility for his action and stop defending them. There is no defense.

9. posted by Johnny at October 13, 2008 7:37 pm :
   

   I, for one, could not support someone who uses state resources for his political campaign and feels that there is nothing wrong with it. And, he has the nerve to say that everyone should just get along and not fight? We should ignore when money is misallocated or used inappropriately? Of course he believes that — his actions speak louder than his words. Time he should step aside.

10. posted by GetRealRichmond at October 14, 2008 5:58 am :
    

    Some people have very short memories!

    Where was all this high-minded indignation when Chris Hilbert used tax payer dollars to send out a newsletter to the Third District that violated City Council’s own ordinance?

11. posted by Doug at October 14, 2008 9:02 am :
    

    Chris Hilbert didn’t violate a City Council ordinance. His newsletter went out before the deadline and is an acceptable form of communication with constituents.

    Taxpayers dollars were spent on the mailing, but it wasn’t something done for Chris’ own personal benefit, which can’t be said for Mr. Davis’ case.

12. posted by JS at October 14, 2008 12:18 pm :
    

    Get Real – I am not exactly convinced with your argument. You are some how comparing mailing flyers at his own expense with the blatant exploitation of youth in a state correctional facility by a tenured state employee. In your case, the use of tax dollars to support Mr. Davis’ campaign would be justified, in that it seems as though you support him for the third district council seat. In the case of many others, this was nothing more than corruption. I have hard time accepting Mr. Davis’ plea of ignorance concerning this matter in that this not his first day on the job as a state employee. Speaking to that point, if he is not even sure how work with in the parameters of the law in his current job, how is he going to be able to as a city councilman for the city of Richmond?

    I do believe that incarcerated youth should get on the job training, and should learn the basics with the political system and how it works. That being said, is the best way for them to do that by laboring for their teacher so that he can trim campaign expenses? I think not. As civil servant, it pains me to see abuse in the system; Mr. Davis’ actions precisely those that give the public sector a bad name.

    If Mr. Davis insists on running a corrupt campaign, we can surely expect that if he is elected, a corrupt councilman is what we will get.

13. posted by GetRealRichmond at October 15, 2008 2:01 pm :
    

    Hilbert mailed those newsletters at TAXPAYER EXPENSE and I have a hard time accepting that he did not violate a City Council ordinance in so doing.

    Saying that he intended to mail it out in “MAY” and then having nothing whatsoever in the newsletter that referenced “MAY” or “JUNE” or “JULY” –really stretched his credibility on that one.

    As a citizen, it pains me to see TWO people who have abused the system and my trust not being held accountable.

    At no point in my comment did I state anything other than:

    “Where was all this high-minded indignation when Chris Hilbert used tax payer dollars to send out a newsletter to the Third District that violated City Council’s own ordinance?”

    I should have clearly stated that I believe BOTH Hilbert and Davis are in the WRONG. And, unfortunately, this means 3rd District citizens have to decide between TWO WRONGS.

14. posted by JS at October 15, 2008 2:35 pm :
    

    Get Real – I apologize if I insinuated that you were a Mr. Davis supporter if indeed you are not. That was an assumption on my part.

    I do however want to assert that the campaign material sent by Mr. Hilbert was not at the taxpayer expense, in that I do not believe that the state or the city provides funds for campaign mail outs. If this is the case, it would be offered to all candidates. The only way I see Mr. Hilbert being able to accomplish securing personal city funds is by making a budget amendment through a majority vote of the city council to appropriate the funds to his campaign. That to me seems unlikely as well as a blatant disregard of the Code of Virginia. If that was the case however, it would be public record and would have required a public hearing through which you would have been able to express your discontent. I am under the understanding that campaign materials have a disclaimer that reads something to the effect of the material provided was paid for by the candidate’s campaign fund.

    I challenge you to back up this notion that Mr. Hilbert has been using (embezzling) tax payer funds. Ways to go about doing this would be to FOIA (Freedom OF Information Act) the City Council Office. I appreciate where you are coming from and I too would prefer not see any corrupt councilman in office.

15. posted by Anonymous at October 15, 2008 3:46 pm :
    

    http://voicenewspaper.com/

16. posted by Steve at October 15, 2008 5:10 pm :
    

    I have read the article. What my take away on it is a city offical trying to make the community better. Mr. Lawrence has 100s of blighted properties through out the city of Richmond. City is having to take him to court all the time. I would like to point out is that City Council person can’t direct any city employee to do anything. They can ask but that power falls under Mayor.

    I have heard Jonthan Davis several times at debates state they need to be harder on these owners. I would like to point out that Mr. Davis didn’t remind anyone that he accepted into his campaign $250 Standard Auto Center, and $250 Standard Auto Sales.

    It also strange that Mr. Davis took $500 the owner of Chevron Station. This is the same business that Mr. Davis testify against at the ABC hearing.

    Many of owners of these blighted buildings are often allowed not to maintain these buildings.

    I am glad that Mr. Hilbert was trying to find a way to fix a blighted building and at the sametime providing job training.

    $250 Standard Auto Center Ashland
    $250 Standard Auto Sales LLC Richmond

17. posted by Mark at October 15, 2008 5:43 pm :
    

    This is from Mr. Davis’s website.
    Owners of blighted properties must be held accountable for either renovating them and occupying them or selling them to persons who will.

    Sounds like Mr. Hilbert was doing what Davis is going to do if he is elected.

18. posted by GetRealRichmond at October 15, 2008 5:59 pm :
    

    More evidence that they are both a couple of bums. And, Steve … you must be working for Hilbert. Why else would you hear Jonathan Davis “several times” state anything?

    Since you are so familiar with the campaign contributions, maybe you could tell us how many DEVELOPERS Hilbert has taken money from? In-town and out-of-town developers?

19. posted by Steve at October 15, 2008 6:08 pm :
    

    No I don’t work for Chris Hilbert. I live in the 3rd district for about 10 years now. I just wanted to point out some balance.

20. posted by GetRealRichmond at October 15, 2008 6:10 pm :
    

    Davis was criticized for just trying to (inappropriately) provide some job “training” and now Hilbert is being praised for trying to play “palsy-walsy” with a guy notorious for having blighted properties?

    The double-standard here stinks.

21. posted by Anonymous at October 15, 2008 6:22 pm :
    

    This is so interesting. As everyone knows, Jonathan Davis is in Dougie Wilder’s back pocket and Dougie helps him along in this battle. And everyone also knows that Dougie is thoroughly against Chris Hilbert, because he pushed for investigation and prosecution for the “stealing” of $500k funds for the restoration of battery park/school board eviction. My question is….Once “Dougie” is gone, where is Mr. Davis going to be? Where will Hilbert stand. I would think that Hilbert would be able to stand on his own and really be able to start getting things done for the community. Mr. Davis? He may just be standing alone. We all know that with the current Mayor in place, nothing is getting done except what his majesty wants.

22. posted by Steve at October 15, 2008 7:02 pm :
    

    I didn’t get that from the story at all. The Voice was trying to make Oliver look like victim and Hilbert the villain.

    Get you are right this guy is notorious slum lord. My take was Hilbert was trying to him to do something. Davis was the person that took a total of $500 from this “notorious” slumlord.

23. posted by GetRealRichmond at October 15, 2008 7:27 pm :
    

    But, Hilbert was promising to cut him a deal if he would sell a property , right? Isn’t that wrong? Why isn’t Hilbert fighting to hold this guy accountable?

24. posted by Doug at October 15, 2008 7:39 pm :
    

    Davis’ own website states: “Owners of blighted properties must be held accountable for either renovating them and occupying them or selling them to persons who will.”

    All Hilbert was doing was trying to get one of the biggest blighted property owners to sell his building to a non-profit that would work to advance our community, rather than bring it down like Mr. Lawrence has.

    There’s absolutely NOTHING wrong with what Mr. Hilbert has done and I question the timing of this story. It’s amazing that it’s come out only days after the RTD accurately reported on Mr. Davis’ use of child prison labor for the benefit of his own campaign.

    Davis is unbelievable and he should be ashamed. I’m sure he’s not because it’s clear he doesn’t have an ounce of integrity.

    Lastly, the only developers Hilbert has taken money from have been new construction home builders - people and companies with outstanding reputations, not slumloard’s! Hilbert has also received the endorsement of the Home Builders Association. They definitely wouldn’t be putting their name behind someone who accepts money (and then tries to “spin” the relationship another way) from one of Richmond’s most notorious blighted property owners.

25. posted by Johnny at October 15, 2008 9:17 pm :
    

    I read the story with great interest. Too bad I did not understand it. From the sound of the article, these code violations were cited before the discussion took place. And, if someone has blighted property, why not work on ways to either clean it up or sell it. Both candidates have stated they want to clean up the blight.. but one.. hmmm takes money from the man with 600 citations. No conflict there. It is one thing to have a conversation.. it is another to say do it or else. The article does not say that was the case. And, I agree with anonymous.. how did that memo leak out. Hmm.. I wonder.. the big hand of Doug Wilder who (total speculation) might be the Harry Potter of VCU perhaps?? Funny how the media is the first to know with anything he does.

26. posted by GetRealRichmond at October 15, 2008 10:44 pm :
    

    You must be inhaling something if you think that Doug Wilder might be the Harry Potter of VCU ……whattawayweirdidea……

    doncha know, Wilder is supposed to be Voldemort Himself?

27. posted by JS at October 16, 2008 7:01 am :
    

    It seems to me we have a property owner, who either cannot afford to, or is not willing to keep up his property. The evidence thereto is the violations levied against the said property. Mr. Lawrence, in lieu of these violations, feels threatened by building inspectors and police who have served him the notices of violation. On top of all this, we have an outraged Mr. Davis stating that Mr. Hilbert has abused his power.

    It seems to me we are all in need of a civics lesson. In Richmond’s city government, there is a legislative branch (represented by council) and an executive branch (represented by the mayor). City agencies (like the Department of Community Development) do not report to city council, rather they report the executive branch. In the case of Standard Auto, the executive agency was doing their job by serving these violations to Mr. Lawrence. Instead of feeling intimidated, he should do something with his property. Because of the way the city government works, Mr. Hilbert could not have threatened Mr. Lawrence with the agents of the Department of Community Development or the Police and thus he could not have abused his power as Mr. Davis has been so eloquently quoted because he does not have that power abuse.

    There are two things, however, that continue to bother me about the article. The first is that Mr. Hilbert supported a drug rehab center for the property. Now to some this may be honorable, but to me it brings the wrong element into a neighborhood that is trying to gentrify. The larger issue though, to me, is Mr. Davis’ quote: “It is unconscionable that Mr. Hilbert could so easily abuse his power in office. When he made the poor decision to work outside of the system for his own agenda, he put the well-being of the third district in jeopardy. Ironically, it has been Mr. Hilbert who has claimed to be a protector of the taxpayers
    dollars, but obviously this is not the case.” How is Mr. Davis in any place to make this statement? Let us not forget why this blog was started. Mr. Davis is state employee who used tax dollars and incarcerated children to work on his campaign all at the tax payer expense. No wonder he feels this way, he owes it to Mr. Lawrence, after all, between the incarcerated children and the slum lord campaign contributor he has quite the double standard to preserve.

28. posted by Battery Park at October 16, 2008 8:39 am :
    

    Poor Oliver Lawrence…
    On the right hand side of this forum, there are little photos. If you click those, it will take you to the Northside (NS) flickr forum where photos of NS are posted. Two photos were just posted of a house that Oliver Lawrence owns on my street. If you want to check it on the city’s website, the address is 2921/3 (now just one) Hanes Avenue. It was broken into this summer by some drug using squatters and has more recently become a haven for a small drug using group. The yard and porch are littered with feces, drug bags, and bottles. If Northside is going to improve, it cannot start by accepting donations or aligning with this man.

29. posted by Jennifer C. at October 16, 2008 2:03 pm :
    

    Well, well, well. If I didn’t think that you guys were biased in behalf of Chris Hilbert boy do I do now. You guys are presented with an allegation of wrong doing on behalf of Jonathan Davis and is is believed whole heartedly without reservation. Some of you have called him horrible names on here on the basis of one article. The same exact thing happens with Chris Hilbert and nooowww….you cant see anything wrong. I just got a paper today and was appalled. YOU CAN’T PROMISE TO FORGIVE SOMEONE’S CODE VIOLATIONS not matter what. How can we really accuse Jonathan Davis of being in a corrupt official because he took campaign donations from Oliver Lawrence and then say its OK…rofl when Chris Hilbert tries to get Oliver’s CODE VIOLATIONS forgiven. Alot of you guys on here are racist. Thats it…in a nutshell. And before you begin to use your venom on me. Know these…I’m not a person of color and I still see the handwriting on the wall. Your using a double standard to judge the same actions. WHAT does it matter what he wanted to use the building for. IT IS BARELY LEGAL to try use your influence to forgive someone’s violations and when we speak about taxpayers…rofl…who do you people think would have footed the bill if Chris was successful with his CORRUPTION scheme. I met these men at a forum a couple of weeks ago and firmly believe that you people are so upset because you want to keep unethical and hypocritical Chris on council because he represents and cares about only you. Shame on you all. START using the same rule of corruption for all. I mean isn’t that American way? Or maybe in the 3rd it’s not.

30. posted by Jennifer C. at October 16, 2008 2:07 pm :
    

    P.S. Battery Park you mentioned in your blog that and I quote, “If Northside is going to improve, it cannot start by accepting donations or aligning with this man.”

    Why doesn’t that include Chris Hilbert who tried to get the same code violations you speak of FORGIVEN. Sounds like bribery too me. Why not to you?

31. posted by Jennifer C. at October 16, 2008 2:15 pm :
    

    Oh and JS FYI, you might wanna research a little more before you blog. Chris Hilbert did ask for an receive $1,800 dollars from city council to send out his late newsletters. At the same meeting Martin Jewell from the 5th district also got money to send out a newletter, he got his out on TIME though…You should call their office and ask them. It’s also on the city council website in the minutes section.

    Sorry to tell you that you have incorrect information.
    But now that you know the truth, I’m sure you have just another excuse as to why poooorrr Chris did nothing wrong.

    You know what people is so crazy, I dont particularly like City Council as a whole. So I have no leaning towards either man. I just HATE when a rule of thumb isn’t used equally. In what universe is accepting a campaign contribution from a bad man worse than working to get that man a free pass on his bad deeds.. I swear I feel like Im in the twilight zone. EITHER ITS BAD FOR BOTH OR TOLERABLE FOR BOTH. Man when are we gonna start to talking about some issues. Please….Please…..Please can we talk about some issues?

32. posted by Doug at October 16, 2008 2:40 pm :
    

    Jennifer C - You need to get your facts right. First off, no one disputed that Chris Hilbert spent $1800K to send out his newsletter. And, Marty Jewell spent $3600K. Chris’ newsletter DID go out on time - two days before a deadline is still meeting the deadline!

    And, Mr. Hilbert did not try and get Oliver Lawrence’s code violations forgiven. He tried to find a way to get Oliver Lawrence to sell his property to someone who would maintain it — something that Mr. Davis says should be done with blighted properties (per his own website).

    Regarding the allegations against Mr. Davis’ use of incarcerated youth. It was YOU that posted, on September 5, 2008 8:15 am, the statement that “Mr. Hilbert CAN NOT use he access to resources and influence for his re-election campaign and clearly that was what that was”

    You based this off of one story in the RTD. Please educate us all as to how what Mr. Davis has done is any different. And, for your information, Mr. Hilbert didn’t use access to resources for his re-election campaign. He used city resources to communicate with city residents. It was Mr. Davis who used his access to state resources for his election campaign.

33. posted by Anonymous at October 16, 2008 6:34 pm :
    

    Jennifer C–the only person I see here spewing venom is you. I have read all of the entries and do not see anything racial. You my dear, are hopless.

34. posted by hillkid at October 16, 2008 7:34 pm :
    

    GetRealRichmond & JenniferC:

    Well, you two get around.

    Do you two spend all day on these hood blogs? I’m self employed so that’s how I get away with being pathetic. What’s your excuse.

    Nice to see that you are hypocrites when it comes to playing nice.

35. posted by GetRealRichmond at October 16, 2008 7:46 pm :
    

    No…. Jennifer C. is dead-on. You “see” the racial when you realize that the white guy is being held to a much lower standard of accountability.

    Those who do not see the stacked decked here are the hopeless ones.

36. posted by Dora at October 16, 2008 10:18 pm :
    

    Well, I just read it - and I have no agenda. I am not thrilled with either candidate. I agree wholeheartedly with what Jennifer C says. Frankly, it looks like a bunch of Hilbert thugs have taken over this discussion. What is that about?

37. posted by anonymous at October 16, 2008 10:21 pm :
    

    Davis although once a somewhat nice person has taken the wrong road to get things. He has compromised his own morals and took from people he has fought against in the past (Ali and Lawrence) It has nothing to do with his color… it is his CHOICES on why I am warning everyone of his crooked deeds.
    Signed-
    A white Northsider who wants a Black president…now can we keep the race card out of this PLEEEAAASE

38. posted by GetRealRichmond at October 17, 2008 7:07 am :
    

    Jennifer & Dora,

    I am so glad for your fresh eyes on this. This has been so apparent for so long. No matter what Hilbery does, he gets a free pass. No one here seems to understand that they might look at him differently if he had been as absent in Ginter Park as he was in Battery Park when we had raw sewage backing up into our streets.

39. posted by Steve at October 17, 2008 7:36 am :
    

    GetReal: Hilbert was not absent at all from Battery Park. He was there. And if wasn’t at Battery he was downtown making sure people got temp housing.

    There are several families they City admin cut off in terms of paying for hotels. Hilbert came out of his own pocket to pay for the families to stay in those hotels when the City admin stopped. He also came out of his own pocket to help pay families’ mortgage payments.

    This information that is not in any of his campaign flyer. Hilbert did this cause he felt it was the right thing to do. And he hasn’t gotten up used this information to self promote himself.

    I found this information out from the families themselves.

40. posted by Scott at October 17, 2008 9:35 am :
    

    GetRealRichmond, I don’t know where you were, but I saw Mr. Hilbert several times during the flooding and at all of the townhall meetings thereafter.

41. posted by GetRealRichmond at October 17, 2008 10:32 am :
    

    He was out of town when the flooding first happened and allowed Wilder to run roughshod over Battery Park. Hilbert was a johnny-come-lately to holding the Mayor accountable and we have YET to see any real justice in Battery Park. He used that City Council Investigation panel to grandstand.

    I do not believe your statements that Hilbert paid out of his pocket for anything, given that he has “discretionary” money to use and that he and Wilder are similar in their need for public attention.

    Having said all this — I remain troubled that Davis used his position as he did and wish only that there were some choice available for a candidate with integrity for Council in the 3rd.

    I am deeply disppointed with both of them. ‘Nuff said.

42. posted by Sheila at October 17, 2008 12:12 pm :
    

    I am Chris Hilbert’s wife and I’m sorry that you don’t believe that Chris “paid out of his own pocket for anything.” You are incorrect. Chris and I PERSONALLY pay for multiple nights at a hotel for a displaced family. We also personally paid someone’s mortgage payment and made a financial gift, as well as volunteered with the Battery Park relief effort.

    In the years since the Battery Park flood, neither Chris nor I have ever “promoted” the financial assistance we provided to those in need. Grandstanding and self-congratulatory behavior is not something either one of us is interested in doing, however, after reading the most recent post where Chris’ integrity has been called into question I felt the need to set the record straight.

    Get Real Richmond, you are correct that Chris does have a “discretionary” fund for the district, but he felt it wouldn’t be right to use that money. The fund exists and should be used to benefit the entire district, not a specific individual and/or family. Chris could have easily turned his back and honestly said funding wasn’t available to assist with accommodations, but he knew what the right thing was to do and did it.

    You are incorrect in stating that Chris was out of town when the flood happened. He was very much in Richmond. He was in Battery Park the day of the flood, he spent hours at the emergency shelter at the Arthur Ashe Center and he was back in Battery Park for most of the next day. He did leave town 2 days later, was gone for 36 hours and came back in order to attend the tuesday evening emergency meeting that he and Council staff had planned. A meeting I might add that neither the Mayor or the administration helped to organize.

    You question the value of Chris’ efforts as the Chair of the City Council investigation. That investigation was used as a means to uncover the truth about the attempted eviction of the school board and nothing less. At the end of the day, if it hadn’t been for the work of that committee we never would’ve known about the $500K that was stolen from Battery Park and while we all hope that “justice” will be done, that’s not something Council has any control over. That’s up to the Commonwealth Attorney and the Mayor.

    I’m sorry that you are disappointed in Chris’ work on Council, but I know that the 3rd district council race has a candidate with integrity. You must not know Chris because if you did you’d know he is a decent, good and honest man who has worked tirelessly over the last four years to support the residents of this district. Has he made mistakes? Sure. Has he been perfect? Definitely not. But, he’s gotten up each day and tried to do the right thing for our community and our neighbors. I’m proud to have him as my Council person and I hope that most 3rd district residents feel the same.

43. posted by Steve at October 17, 2008 12:12 pm :
    

    GetReal, He wouldn’t be allowed to money from that “discretiionary account” for that purpose. I didn’t get this information him, I got it from the people he help. ‘Nuff said is right.

44. posted by Anonymous at October 17, 2008 5:20 pm :
    

    I am Chris Hilbert’s wife and I’m sorry that you don’t believe that Chris “paid out of his own pocket for anything.” You are incorrect. Chris and I PERSONALLY pay for multiple nights at a hotel for a displaced family. We also personally paid someone’s mortgage payment and made a financial gift, as well as volunteered with the Battery Park relief effort.
    In the years since the Battery Park flood, neither Chris nor I have ever “promoted” the financial assistance we provided to those in need. Grandstanding and self-congratulatory behavior is not something either one of us is interested in doing, however, after reading the most recent post where Chris’ integrity has been called into question I felt the need to set the record straight.

    Get Real Richmond, you are correct that Chris does have a “discretionary” fund for the district, but he felt it wouldn’t be right to use that money. The fund exists and should be used to benefit the entire district, not a specific individual and/or family. Chris could have easily turned his back and honestly said funding wasn’t available to assist with accommodations, but he knew what the right thing was to do and did it.

    You are incorrect in stating that Chris was out of town when the flood happened. He was very much in Richmond. He was in Battery Park the day of the flood, he spent hours at the emergency shelter at the Arthur Ashe Center and he was back in Battery Park for most of the next day. He did leave town 2 days later, was gone for 36 hours and came back in order to attend the tuesday evening emergency meeting that he and Council staff had planned. A meeting I might add that neither the Mayor or the administration helped to organize.

    You question the value of Chris’ efforts as the Chair of the City Council investigation. That investigation was used as a means to uncover the truth about the attempted eviction of the school board and nothing less. At the end of the day, if it hadn’t been for the work of that committee we never would’ve known about the $500K that was stolen from Battery Park and while we all hope that “justice” will be done, that’s not something Council has any control over. That’s up to the Commonwealth Attorney and the Mayor.

    I’m sorry that you are disappointed in Chris’ work on Council, but I know that the 3rd district council race has a candidate with integrity. You must not know Chris because if you did you’d know he is a decent, good and honest man who has worked tirelessly over the last four years to support the residents of this district. Has he made mistakes? Sure. Has he been perfect? Definitely not. But, he’s gotten up each day and tried to do the right thing for our community and our neighbors. I’m proud to have him as my Council person and I hope that most 3rd district residents feel the same.

45. posted by Lowell at October 18, 2008 10:18 am :
    

    John , why did you post the RTD article with such haste and Voice article that ran this week about Chris Hillbert’s integrity questions has yet to appear on the NRN ?

46. posted by Dora at October 18, 2008 12:28 pm :
    

    If I were in your shoes, I would discourage the thugs that bully people to refrain from posting on these boards on your husband’s behalf. I’ll be honest, the nastiness has left a bad taste in my mouth and I have not made a decision.

47. posted by North Richmond News » Property owner complains to Richmond Voice about citations - Richmond, Virginia at October 18, 2008 7:35 pm :
    

    [...] and a string of commentary on a recent article in the Richmond Voice; the article was cited in a thread of comments here at North Richmond News earlier this week. From CHPN: Oliver Lawrence, long-time owner of much [...]

48. posted by John at October 18, 2008 9:00 pm :
    

    I don’t want to get into the habit of trying to defend or over-explain why I do what I do, but I posted the TD piece “quickly” because it was published the day before I do most of my posting on NRN. If it had come out a day later, it would have been a week before I got it up. I didn’t read most of the comments on the post until late this week, so didn’t know about the Voice story until then. Hope that helps clarify things, Lowell.

49. posted by Hilbert v Davis heats up over Lawrence’s allegations | RVANews at October 19, 2008 7:14 am :
    

    [...] 1980s/1990s Richmond politics, the Chris Hilbert v Jonathan Davis campaign in the Third District is running hot right now. In a recent Richmond Voice, owner of much vacant and blighted property Oliver Lawrence complained [...]

50. posted by Lauren S. at October 22, 2008 12:44 pm :
    

    Ah, credit where credit is due… I feel I must post this information, as a Hilbert supporter, in the effort of keeping this election clean.
    I got it on the “low-down” that Jonathan did not break any agency’s rules. The organization he works for, a non-profit extension of the Dept. of Correctional Education, is a non-profit business. It is run like a business and contracts like a business. Jonathan purchased, as it does cost less than for-profit companies, their printing services. Now, whether it goes against state code that an extension of government printed items for a campaign (and appears to be a conflict of interest), is outside the scope of any agency’s rules.

51. posted by Lucy at October 22, 2008 1:48 pm :
    

    It is correct that Jonathan Davis did not break any agency rules in using the Youth Industries program. However, I have it on the “low-down” that he was investigated by the state fraud and abuse audit department in August 2008 and the results of this investigation were that while he didn’t break any specific agency policy, he did use state resources and time to print his political campaign materials. The first investigation that was completed late this summer did not take into account the failure to pay for the ward’s time and a new investigation has been launched.

    I also have learned that the superindent of Mr. Davis’ direct agency, Walter McFarlane at the Dept of Correctional Education did not know he was running for City Council, which is in conflict with what Davis said. Lastly, apparently Mr. Davis will be required to reimburse the state for the “fair market” value of the printing and design services.

    I agree that while Mr. Davis’ actions may not have been in violation of any state “rules”, I think what he did shows incredibly poor judgement and was completely inappropriate. I agree with Hilbert’s comments in the RTD, I don’t see how kids who are in jail can voluntarily agree to work for their supervisory. It feels like coersion to me and an exploitation of these kids.
    Furthermore, he himself stated to the RTD that he didn’t know how the youth’s $2 per hour wage was paid, which means he didn’t pay it and we as taxpayers did. To me, that is inappropriate for someone seeking elected office.

52. posted by anonymous at October 22, 2008 4:06 pm :
    

    He was guilty. Not enough to lose his job but enough to be in touble.

    FOIA…. it is a wonderful thing.

53. posted by David at October 24, 2008 8:09 am :
    

    an update can be found here:

    http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news/politics.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-10-24-0150.html

54. posted by Lucy at October 24, 2008 11:26 am :
    

    It’s laughable that Davis claims he insisted on paying the $1,384 back to the state. If he was so honest he never would have expected the state to cover the labor costs in the first place. Bottom line, he was caught and is now being forced to do the right thing. Is this really the kind of elected official we want?

55. posted by Scott at October 24, 2008 1:15 pm :
    

    This really is a sad situation. I can not beleive that someone who is running for an elected position can not see the conflict here. Makes me wonder.

56. posted by North Richmond News » TD has update on campaign sign issue - Richmond, Virginia at October 24, 2008 6:27 pm :
    

    [...] Times-Dispatch’s Will Jones has an update on the 3rd District campaign issue involving the use of incarcerated youth in a state job-training prog… to produce cards and signs for candidate Jonathan Davis: Those concerns, stemming in part from [...]

Leave a Comment