Avoiding Realtor Fees

Editorial: Tears of a clown

When ex-City Council aide Steven Vaughn pleaded guilty last month to federal fraud charges, his former boss, Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller, reacted the same way she did last fall upon learning of his indictment. She was "saddened."

When former City Treasurer Corey Kemp was convicted on 27 counts of conspiracy, fraud and other offenses last week, Mayor Street took a page from Miller's book. That's right. He was "deeply saddened."

When the city's elected officials respond to City Hall's insidious corruption with little but petty tears, citizens are saddled with the real sorrow.

Both the mayor and the councilwoman have shown an appalling lack of genuine outrage and meaningful action.

In Street's case, he refuses to accept responsibility for the pay-to-play cesspool in which he swims. He's an old-school mayor who rose through the ranks of government playing the very system now under the microscope in a wide-ranging federal investigation. Just because Street doesn't appear to have crossed the line (he has not been charged with any wrongdoing), doesn't mean he's not responsible for encouraging the backroom deals that have effectively placed a "graft" tax on doing business with the city.

"The buck stops with the criminal," Street said in June 2004 when Ron White, his close friend and major fundraiser, and Kemp were indicted.

With mantras like that, the mayor will find his legacy permanently tarnished, marked by complacency instead of real reform.

While there's no question City Council needs to pass a comprehensive ethics package, as the mayor has said, suggestions by convicted public officials — like Kemp and Vaughn — that they were "just doing their jobs" is absurd.

As revealed in reams of wiretaps, they shamelessly spoke about how they could use their positions for personal or political gain, with little to no regard for those footing the bill — the taxpayers.

But unlike Street, Councilwoman Miller has never publicly denounced the corruption under her nose. She voted against ethics reform this year, claiming that nonprofits would be hurt by the new rules. Is it any wonder the public's sense of confidence in city government has eroded?

If Miller, a lifelong community activist, is concerned for the welfare of nonprofits, perhaps she should take seriously the recent effort by a group of her constituents to oust Vaughn from the Central Germantown Council, instead of dismissing it as a political attack.

"Why is this such a newsworthy thing," she asked the Daily News last week. "Because these people [those seeking Vaughn's ouster] are after me. It's based on hate and all kinds of issues."

Such charges have little basis in fact; they are at best irresponsible and at worst dangerous. It's Miller that seems intent on politicizing this issue.

The petitioners that were met with hostility, both last month and last week, have a legitimate concern for their communities. The propriety of a convicted felon running a nonprofit organization set to receive $186,000 in city funds is questionable.

While Vaughn has unquestionably helped bring positive change to many Northwest communities — his role in the Germantown Avenue Bridge negotiations was critical — his criminal behavior constitutes a deep violation of the public trust.

The grassroots effort to remove him from power is remarkable, if for nothing else than its sheer bravado.

Activists were shouted down in face-to-face confrontations during a board meeting last month. Last week, the tension exploded into physical altercation. One community leader characterized the conduct of the board members as "thug behavior." That description is on the mark. Dissenting voices were hardly welcomed.

Any semblance of democracy in Germantown seems to have faded long ago. In 2003, Republican City Council candidate Deborah Williams claimed she was escorted off the Avenue during Germantown Unity Day. Williams also said she was cautioned against distributing her campaign literature.

Besides backing a new round of ethics bills (a package would have to be completed by September to be on the November ballot), Councilwoman Miller must work to close the divide so apparent in her district.

Message to the mayor and the councilwoman: Get to work and spare us the tears.

Michael J. Mishak

Claiming God’s favor only leads to monopoly on arrogance

The Examined Life
By George Stern

“The monologue of the Religious Right is finally over, and a new dialogue has begun.”

So said Jim Wallis in a recent talk at Princeton University. Wallis is an Evangelical Christian minister, editor of Sojourners magazine, and author most recently of God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It. For the sake of the country, I wish that Wallis were right, and that the time for civil public discourse about religion and moral issues was at hand. But if the recent “Justice Sunday” is any indication — when a prominent senator endorsed an event whose organizers suggested that those who disagree with them are not people of faith — Wallis’ time of dialogue is not yet upon us.

In the days when presidents were subtle thinkers and Americans demanded more than sound bites, Abraham Lincoln said, “In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party — and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose.” To claim that “God is on our side” is to arrogate to ourselves a knowledge of God’s ways that, in effect, denies God — for who/what is God if we can figure God out? Still, it remains incumbent upon us to try — humbly —– to discern what God wants of us.

Recently I attended planning meetings and events aimed at mobilizing speak-outs against the federal budget, deemed “immoral” by many religious groups because it supports military expenditures and tax cuts for the wealthy while proposing severe multi-year cuts in social services. No religious group I am aware of came out in favor of the budget, though some remained silent.

But how can we be sure that God opposes the budget — or even cares about it? Who decides what God wants, and on what basis?

I will never forget what an eye-opener it was for me, one day in rabbinical school, to learn of the following: One day some 16 centuries ago, some rabbis were debating whether a particular oven was “kosher,” i.e., fit for Jewish use. Unable to resolve the issue, Rabbi Eliezer asked God to intervene: “If the law agrees with me, let it be proved from heaven!” Sure enough, a divine voice cried out to the rabbis, “Why do you dispute Rabbi Eliezer, with whom the law always agrees?” But Rabbi Joshua stood up and said to his colleagues, “We pay no attention to a divine voice, because long ago, at Mount Sinai, God wrote in the Torah, After the majority must one incline” (an unusual translation of the end of Exodus 23:2). What was God’s reaction to this challenge to divine authority? The story goes on: Soon thereafter Rabbi Nathan met the prophet Elijah and asked him, “What did God do upon hearing that?” Said Elijah: “God laughed joyously, saying, ‘My children have defeated me, my children have defeated me.’” God agrees that WE determine what God wants of us. How exhilarating! And how challenging!

Who the “we” are is often debated. Many claim religious authority. Some claim to hold the only truth, despite the existence of other such claims. Attitudes toward authority’s legitimacy change, as when Martin Luther challenged the Roman Catholic Church, or when the next generation of Muslims split over Mohammad’s legitimate heir.

America makes it especially difficult for one religious group to claim supremacy. Americans are affiliated with thousands of religious groups large and small, splinters within subsects within sects — all guaranteed religious freedom by the Constitution. The result is that this society cannot function well unless the political system avoids involvement in issues of religious disagreement. Social conflict can be avoided only if personal moral decisions are protected from government interference unless society as a whole would be endangered by inaction. Such non-interference allows a religious group, to which an individual voluntarily belongs, to take a strong and uncompromising moral stand on an issue, while government, with responsibility to the whole society, is free to engage in compromise among legitimate competing opinions. A religious group should not be asked to compromise on its sense of morality, while government should not impose laws that limit the right of individuals to follow their conscience. Religion and government must remain separate precisely because they function on different planes and under different assumptions. Mixing the two compromises both.

That having been said, how can we find areas in which religious groups can work together for the betterment of society? Jim Wallis put it this way: “Faith is meant to change the big things, the things nobody thinks can change.” It is hard to imagine how a religious movement can claim the mantle of God’s authority when it places tax cuts for the wealthy and the confirmation of particular judges at the center of its agenda while expressing little or no concern for millions of children without health care, urban and rural education in a shambles, and crime rates rising as meaningful employment falls. The Hebrew prophets arose to challenge the power brokers of their day — the kings, princes and priests who wielded both political and economic power. Their moral outrage was directed at the haves, not the have-nots.

If Jim Wallis is right, all religious leaders will eventually get around to addressing those issues. Sooner rather than later, I hope.

Opinion: Freshman lessons

by BOB PREVIDI

After my first full year as a board member of the Chestnut Hill Community Association (CHCA), I am excited about Chestnut Hill’s future. We all know what a wonderful place Chestnut Hill is. Over the past year, I have learned that the street life and events that bring us together don’t magically happen. I must admit that when I ran for the board, I didn’t comprehend the full breadth of the CHCA and the commitment of its volunteers.  There have been a plethora of events and activities that have promoted a sense of “community” and the funds they raise helped to pay for many important needs within the community. Clearly, the people in Chestnut Hill care about their neighborhood, and they do more then just talk. They take action. 

That willingness to participate and do more then just sit on the sidelines is what my wife and I enjoy. It is hard to find the time to serve the community after a long day at work or simply raising our two kids. But both my wife and I look forward to doing our part — not only to preserve the beauty and historic nature of Chestnut Hill, but to make this place even stronger.   

When we moved here a little more then two years ago, we felt right at home from the beginning. Notwithstanding our terrific neighbors, we made friends at the Jenks Children’s Park, the Black & White Gala, Pastorius Park concerts, block parties, Chestnut Hill Youth Sports Club, the local restaurants and businesses, and my wife’s favorite – the benches on Germantown Avenue. My wife also likes snooping at the Holiday House Tour. All of these activities and events are supported by the CHCA and they are improving every year! 

Any single one of these events would stand on its own and make any town proud. But a culmination of all these activities in one place is simply amazing and it helps make Chestnut Hill a great place to call home. 

Last summer, tremendous rains took out Cresheim Valley Drive and traffic problems (which have been festering for years) bubbled over. With 15 years of transportation experience, I offered the CHCA board my expertise to reinvigorate the old Traffic and Transportation Committee. This year we hope to take a systematic approach to reviewing some pesky problems that over the years have created hazards for pedestrians and too much traffic and noise for residents. We will find solutions that fit needs of our community, including making it easier for the businesses along Germantown Avenue to attract more customers into our parking lots. 

Events, opportunities, problem-solving — that is what I have experienced in my first year as a board member. I am impressed with all that has been accomplished over this past year, and I am excited about the opportunities that the Hiram Lodge and Water Tower presents us. Just the fact that the community is willing to engage in a meaningful discussion and participate in research is impressive. When people care and make the effort to work together, positive things happen, and it is what makes Chestnut Hill a very special place.    

Bob Previdi is a CHCA board member and chair of the traffic and transportation committee.