Skinner Shines, Bass Bumbles
By Greg L | 13 October 2009 | Manassas City | 33 Comments
While Manassas Police Chief Skinner once again demonstrates a level of professionalism that other area chiefs would be well advised to take note of, Manassas Councilwoman Cheryl Bass dramatically heads in the opposite direction. Just as Chief Skinner announces that pro-life demonstrators will enjoy relaxed restrictions on their protests at a local abortion clinic, Bass strangely delves into the notion of imposing new restrictions, concerned that children participating alongside their parents might be endangered by getting close to people praying for the souls of all the unborn lives snuffed out.
Someone here needs to have their meds adjusted.
First, the good news from the News & Messenger:
Skinner told the council that he looked into the complaints, studied court cases, reviewed city ordinance, talked to the people involved, consulted the city attorney and finally decided to lift the restrictions based on the First Amendment and the group’s right to freedom of speech.
He said his research led him to the conclusion that he was legally bound to ease the restrictions.
What a concept. Do research, consult experts, and make a determination, all in about a week. Someone ought to send this article to Chief Deane, as this novel approach to policy development would be a real revelation to him. Once again, Chief Skinner sets the example. If he keeps this up, he’s going to end up running the Virgina State Police and we’re going to have to find someone to replace him, because this consistent superior performance is going to get noticed sooner or later.
Now for the bad news. There’s someone on the City Council that needs a serious adjustment here:
Councilwoman Sheryl L. Bass asked City Attorney Martin Crim if the number of children at the site could be considered in any future permitting.
“I worry about their safety. I don’t know how that can be addressed,” Bass said.
Yes, Bass is reportedly a Republican. Maybe she studied under Arlen Spector so she would be able to come up with something this inane. Her first inclination here is to start questioning what parents allow their children to do, and suggests that they might not be allowed to participate in pro-life activities at a protest with a fifteen year history and not a single incident of violence or any danger to anyone? How about considering an actual Republican concept here, that parents are in the best position to determine whether it is appropriate for their children to pray over a rosary or hold up a sign urging that babies not be killed instead of asking how the city might prevent them from being able to exercize their First Amendment rights?
I’m absolutely floored here. While Chief Skinner provides such a clear example of what responsible government looks like, Sheryl Bass turns that example entirely on it’s head. Bass better get her head examined in short order, as her tenure on the Chity Council is going to be awfully short if she keeps making utterly dumb statements like this.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.
33 Comments
Views: 973
Loading ...
Well Greg, we will have to agree to disagree on this. I know Bass and she is a level headed woman.
It’s not safe for children to be standing along the roadside. I have witnessed this along Sudley Rd. A parent can blink and lose sight of a child. It’s not safe.
Sheryl is a pragmatic Republican who is likely to be placing child safety ahead of all else. Cut her a break on this one!
I agree with It’s just politics. I drive by the protests often and have worried about children walking so close to the road. It’s ironic to put young children at risk while attempting to save the unborn. I’m glad on one has been hurt to date; however, I hope it doesn’t take a death to revisit this issue. I certainly can’t fault Bass for worring about kids safety.
Different Anonymous, but still…
Those are some extremely well behaved children out there, however her concern is legitimate. There are cars on both sides of those protesters. She is putting children first, perhaps the benefit of those who want to be heard - isn’t that sidewalk on the other side of the service road public property too?
“Someone here needs to have their meds adjusted.” Not Bass. Maybe someone else, but not her.
Well, what did Bass think was happening with children when they were waiting for the school bus, often without the adult supervision present at these demonstrations? She sure never expressed any concerns while on the school board about an arguably more dangerous situation. When she’s now on the city council suddenly she sees safety issues with kids being near a busy road and starts asking the Chief about how they might trample on the First Amendment rights of these kids.
Bass is out of line here.
A couple of things:
City Attorney Martin Crim: Member of the BRUU, BIG Rishell supporter, BIG Lib….Hmmm I wonder where he stands on the Life Issue.
Chief Skinner: A very, very good man, and a solid law-enforcement professional. Every interaction that I have had with him and with his officers has been a positive experience. We should be proud of our chief.
Cheryl Bass: She IS a Republican. She’s not a conservative Republican. There is a difference. The criticisms of her views become accurate when placed in this context.
On the argument at hand: Children? She’s worried about the safety of Children? You mean those living, breathing children in the charge of their parents, who adore children and love life to the point where they are protesting outside of an abortion clinic? These children “might” be in danger of injury or death?
Cheryl, I have news for you. Children are being injured to the point of death…INSIDE THE ABORTION CLINIC! 100% FATALITY RATE! THESE PROTESTERS ARE TRYING TO STOP THIS. THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO DO SO. GET OUT OF THEIR WAY!
“isn’t that sidewalk on the other side of the service road public property too? ”
I’m not positive, but from what I’ve read I think the answer to that is no, that it’s part of the private property, and the owner won’t let the protestors on the property.
Charles, that is too bad. That really is the safest spot for the children protesting. And no one is saying that the parents are putting these kids at risk. Have you seen people driving on Sudley? It’s the motorists.
As one of those people who bring their children to this very protest let me ask all of you this: What’s the intrinsic difference between standing on the sidewalk to pray a Rosary and walking on the sidewalk to go from point A to point B? Why is the former endangering a child but the latter is nothing to get excited about? If you’re willing to ban children being part of the protest are you willing to ban children from using the sidewalk at all, even in the company of their parents?
Anytime I’ve been there the children are well behaved, prayerful if participating, and well attended. Little ones are carried in backpacks or walked in strollers, bigger kids participate, and if there any in between they usually have a blanket that they sit on in the grassy area well away from the traffic.
No one said that they want to ban kids, merely that the concern is founded. It is the same one many parents express about school bus stops on busy streets. I am on your side Jeff, to the point of saying that you should be allowed to protest on the actual proper sidewalk for the safety of all involved, especially the kids. Being limited to that little strip of land between that service road and Sudley is troubling with cars on both sides. I think you should be permitted on the actually sidewalk - how can that sidewalk be private property? And the good behavior of the children in question was acknowledged earlier as well.
The comment by Bass may have just been a dumb one I can forgive, I am concerned about the asst city attorney and his role in all this. Recall it took the council to get involved, at least one member that I know of and respect, to bring all these funny goings on to light. Why they take advice from this law firm is beyond me, they have gotten the city taxpayers in trouble once before with bad advice. Are you listening council?
Worshippers at the alter of The Nanny State have no party lines. We must constantly be vigilant about their “concerns” for our safety; concerns which usually entail the loss of our fundamental rights and freedoms.
Re. Mrs. Bass’ comments: I think you’re reading WAAAAY too much into a two-sentence comment. I was hoping there would be more in the article, but there’s not. Not even opining by the writer. I’ve worked some election day polls with Mrs. Bass, and can’t imagine that there’s a sinister note in her comments.
Hmm, wasn’t she on the school board before she was appointed to the Council? And, we wonder why the schools are so poorly run and why the school budget is so high.
I saw Crim in action at one meeting, and now I see why he acted the way he did.
My grapevine says that Corey Stuart has been told by our Federal Government that he can no longer distribute his stats on the number of illegal immigrants that PWC identifies due to arrest, etc.
Is this true? Are we to be denied this information from people we pay by people we pay.
I hope this is false…
“Worshippers at the alter of The Nanny State have no party lines.” - Robert L. Duecaster
I do not worship The Nanny State. And I also have no party lines. Because both parties suck. Both tax and spend. Both inflate the national debt and deflate my money. Bush, the “conservative”, doubled our debt. Hardly conservative. And he welcomed a foreign invasion. Not what I’d call “national defense”. McCain was simply “Bush junior”. And Obama is worse. Far, far worse.
I’m not saying you are wrong, Robert. I’m saying that while our government (either party) is fomenting discord between Republican voters and Democrat voters, they are drawing attention away from the real problem… themselves!
Both parties get special health plans, and pensions. Will you get a pension?
Both parties are filled with corruption. Chuck Rangel cannot even follow the laws he himself wrote. Both parties are a joke.
Karla,
The new 287(g) agreement requires all public comments about the program be coordinated through ICE. In a manner of speaking it is correct to say that county government won’t be able to provide statistics without authorization from ICE, but they have in the past been eager to show how effective the program is. Usually bureaucrats are pretty happy to show how much work they’re getting done.
We’ll see how the new administration feels about releasing performance statistics about how effectively our public agencies are performing. I’d be surprised if they issue a gag order, and won’t approve any statistics releases.
All she did was voice a concern about children’s safety. She didn’t say she didn’t care about unborn kids, she was indicating concern for ALL children by voicing a thought out loud about the safety of the youngest participants in the protests on both sides of the issue. (God forbid she do that .. actually voice a thought out loud, the audacity of it!) I am pro-life, and don’t see how the councilwoman’s remarks provoked such ire. Chief Skinner did a good thing by reinstating the right to protest at the site and I am glad for it. Councilwoman Bass was not out of line to voice a concern, IT IS HER JOB as a member of council to voice concerns. Mountain out of a molehill.
It is important to recognize that the Manassas Police restrictions on demonstrations have nothing whatever to do with the content of the demonstration. The restrictions were, are and will be strictly directed towards the safety of the demonstrators, possible counter demonstrators, traffice and the public in general. No one in government would even consider whether the demonstration is related to abortion, civil rights, homosexual rights or whatever. Everyone has the right to petition the government for redress of grievances as they see their grievances. It is quite possible that the initial restrictions on the particular application were stricter than necessary, but once the participants brought this to the attention of Council and the Police Department the restrictions were changed to better accommodate free speech expression while still protecting the public safety.
Bottom line: City Council and the Police are sensitive to free speech issues, even free speech you may not like.
The changes in the ICE memorandum of understanding are minimal in respect to the current implementation of the agreement. ICE has developed a prioritization plan with the goal of addressing the most serious crimes and then scaling down the priority list as their resources permit. From their management standpoint this is reasonable. From our standpoint, they are the managers and can set their rules, since we are simply their designated agents. Overall, I think the changes will not have a significant impact on the City’s actions and I take some pride in the fact that our City has become the model for a national ICE plan which is a lot stronger than exists in most localities. You shoud give your Council and Police a kudo or two when they do well.
Mr. Way, its great to see you post on this issue here tonight.
Could you please shed some light on a lingering question? Why on earth does the City Council (a council for which I have universal admiration) have an attorney, Mr. Crim, who contributes significant money to a horrible (my opinion of course) candidate for delegate who lives in Manassas Park to represent us in Richmond, over an adequate Delegate who lives here in the City of Manassas?
I would hate to lose our State Delegate who lives in my city to one who lives Manassas Park.
Anyone attend the debate last night? How’d it go?
Off thread, but noteworthy. This is why we need to deport illegal immigrants now. Their racism is worse than anything we can come up with.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55496
Nice to see them admit that this is part of the plan.
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS39829+14-Oct-2009+PRN20091014
I agree with Craig Eddy and Becky Dee in that Councilwoman Bass was not out of line to voice a concern about SAFETY. Have you seen the cars at that turn, hardly yielding to others driving in and out, and often going way too fast??? Greg L., you really are creating a mountain out of a molehill. And Citizen of Manassas, stop playing the blame game. Have a nice day!
The bull run unitarian church provides “deathscorts” to women waiting abortions in manassas, how loving and kind is that? Folks are correct to question the bias of the city attorneys, especially since they are so out there with their shall we say liberal beliefs, as far as Delegate Miller, he should question how he can get fair dealings with a city that hires these people to represent an all Republican Council save one guy who plays to both sides and thinks we don’t know what he is up to. Bass is a lightweight in spite of all her adoring fans here and Mr. Way is so balanced and open minded I think his brains have fallen out a while ago
“The bull run unitarian church provides “deathscorts” to women waiting abortions in manassas, how loving and kind is that? ”
Note to self: When the Tribulation begins, stay as far away from BRUU as possible. Pillars of salt anyone?
@ Karla H: I’m in absolute agreement with your comment of yesterday afternoon. And one way members of both parties deflect attention from themselves and further their own agendas is to pretend they are concerned about the public’s safety. Maybe Ms. Bass was not using the child-in-the-protest issue in that way, but our (the citizenry’s) radar should be on high power whenever a public official starts talking safety concerns when fundamental rights are at stake.
Greg L said on 14 Oct 2009 at 5:15 pm: Flag comment
Karla,
The new 287(g) agreement requires all public comments about the program be coordinated through ICE.
It looks (sounds like) much of the bite that the 287g program had in the past has been taken away. It sounds like only crimes like murder, rape, robbery will require ICE intervention after sentences are completed (immigration retainer.) What happens to the local illegal alien drunk who is arrested? Is he put back in the community after paying a fine or having his case dismissed?
Another PAPER TIGER!
Have a nice day.
It’s not a blame game. It called fiscal responsibility, which it seems members of the school board do not have. It’s easy to spend money that does not belong to you.
ICE’s focus, thanks to his Obamaness and Secretary Napolitano, has shifted to employers. Workplace raids are a thing of the past, 287G is not being honored. They are softening us up for an amnesty run, using the claims that raids and enforcement aren’t working. Wake up, America! Yankee Stadium will be plowed into a soccer field!
Citizen of Manassas
I think it is disingenuous to accuse the school board of fiscal irresponsibility. They are more conservative than many give them credit for. Wunderly is a clear moral conservative and in my opinion there may only be one social agenda liberal among them. As far as finances, Albrecht is the fiscal conservative of the Board, and most appear willing to listen. Their spending spree is more due to the students they must educate and the expensive programs like “special” ed and ESL that the Federal gov’t says they must provide.
Our gripe should be with the Federal legislate and let the localities pay form of governance.
Citizen, I agree. Albrecht is appropriately fiscally conserative and a very good man. He gets nothing out of the job other than the satisfaction of being honest and trying to do the right thing. He is also very willing to listen as you correctly observe. We are all fortunate to have him there.
Long time,
Every year, the school board whines about needing more money. They are the only agency that is expected to receive a certain amount of money from the Council, regardless if they need it or not. Not even the Police Department or the fire Department has such a deal. Yet, even with getting over half of the general funds, the school board complains about the lack of funds.
The recent ruling of the Supreme Court regarding ESl classes in Arizona makes it clear a district does not necessarily have to educate ESL students at a higher cost.
http://www.nogalesinternational.com/articles/2009/06/30/news/doc4a4a4e91d9efb522199265.txt
Has any of the school board members bothered to look into this?
What needs to happen is to get rid of the elected school board and return tot he appointed school board by the City Council, that will give us more oversight of how much money is spent by the school system.