Thursday, June 11, 2009

My Thanks ...

My thanks to Walter Sullivan for identifying himself and addressing me directly. [Note: For back story, see the comments in In Camera Obscura] I don't know if it was the flattery or the ultimatum, but it worked. I will break my recent pledge and respond, one more time. But after I do, regardless of his response, I will not counter. As I have said before, he is not the one(s) I'm after.

Neither was Tolis. Stewart Graham, Dina Hitchcock, Jeanne Hemphill, and Richard Snowden are the ones who are the movers behind the various plans, from financial malfeasance to newspaper censorship that offend me. The rest are just helpers. So let's begin.

Walter says he never signed a comment as "anonymous". Why then, did he first sign his name to respond to the ultimatum I gave to "anonymous"? That thread never mentioned Walter, it was between me and "anonymous." Shouldn't "anonymous" be angry right about now? Hey "anonymous," why didn't you respond and tell Walter to stay out of our conversation? Right.

Next, the vote count, and the reason for Walter's election. Sorry, but I have never revealed my sources before, but since this story is all over the street, perhaps you can figure out how it got out. Just like the concept of you being better equipped than Tom Hemphill to "handle" Recko, Feldman and Foster. Sound familiar W.S.?

I see no criminality in you actions. Everyone should read more carefully, and not project. Criminals are those convicted of crimes. Chip Butler was. The board never asked him a single question about his actions during his term as trustee, during which he was under the investigation that led to his conviction.

I have written factual accounts on board misconduct for five years. My art includes some evocative imagery, as does the work of other writers, but I have always always included the issues. If someone else could have disputed my facts, they never did.

As for my comment on the Missus, well, gee Walt, you've got to know what I'm talking about.
But I can't hold Walter in the same contempt I have reserved for those mentioned above, for a lot of reasons. His foibles are surface mounted, and strangely lovable. He, unlike those others, is neither secretive, (well, not for long,anyway), mean, sinister, pathological, or profit minded.
But he has been willing to stand by while the others ran their games.

And here's where, and why, everything can change. And I will now speak directly to Walter.
You stood by while Maxine did things that you knew were wrong. That you and the rest of the board cut her loose is an admission.

You stood by while Dina embarrassed the community during the '08 election. You knew she did wrong, but you did nothing. She took a demotion. Another non-admission admission.
Your ethics, your standing in the community, and your voice could have been used to set things right, but you were silent.

Now you have the chance to set your past, and the CHCA's past, right. By listening to your heart, and to me. Because, despite your criticisms, I know what you think of me intellectually, ethically, and artistically. I can see it in your eyes Walter, and that finally, is why I don't hold you in contempt, why I don't think you're like the others.

And, in a political sense, see the difference in the National Political party you belong to and the neighborhood one you have worked with. And then think about the National political party you helped defeat last November. Where are the similarities? Where is the disconnect?

1. You must start by writing in the Local all that transpired in secret about the Positively Chestnut Hill Slate. The extent of Snowden's involvement must be revealed by someone who was there.

2. You must then follow through, stating that anyone who benefited financially from his electoral largesse must recuse themselves on any vote concerning zoning regarding his projects.

3. If anyone involved has revealed to you plans to change the Local, you must reveal them also.

4. You must then state that the Local will return to the freedom it enjoyed before unrelenting pressure from the board and specific board members turned it into a place where fear, rather than security, is the norm. You must guarantee Pete's job and his independence.

5. You must move for a forensic accounting of the Fund that has been fought by the board for so long

6. You must restore the oversight committee, with a non board membership. I will recuse myself from serving.

The Dina's and the Snowdens will not help re-elect you. But they will not be able to stop you during your term.

And here's where the inspirational stuff happens. Walter, the neighborhood will rally to you. All those people who have run from the board because of all the things they have done for so long would give you a REAL majority, not the "mandate" of the lowest vote turnout ever, so many purchased by the CHBA.

The numbers that would return because of your inspirational leadership will make the Dinas and the Snowdens and the CHBAs look like the small timers that they are, in both vote numbers and stature. You won't need their support, you'll have the people's. Some board members will support you also. You can use the Local as a bully pulpit for this reform.

If anyone knows what Dwight Eisenhower and the Republicans expected from Earl Warren, and what they got, you do. It changed America, Walter. It gave us freedom, it gave us equality, it eventually gave us Obama.

But Warren had to listen to his heart, not to those who gave him the job. He had to endure the "Impeach" billboards too.

Greatness never comes without sacrifice. Up 'til now you have been sacrificing the qualities that I think you possess; the qualities that can make you great.

Do any of those who helped you get elected talk to you this way? That's because they only care about themselves. Two parting thoughts, because after this, I'm done talking about this.
Of all human endeavors, the most admirable one, and the one most requiring courage, is redemption.

Courage exists in limitless amounts inside of us.

Norman Vincent Feldman

Labels: , , , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

My dearest compadre Edward, you and your peers and minions continue in the unseemly pattern of placing more importance on the identities of the messengers than the content of the messages. You bestow undue flattery upon yourself to think that the coincidental interlude by Mr. Walter Sullivan was the product of some clever strategy on your part to identify the Anonymous commenters. The identities and motivations of some individuals submitting comments as Anonymous cannot be known. But fear not, Mr. Edward Lewis Feldman, others were submitted by individuals who “take orders” from nobody but themselves, and whose courage is not defined by the parameters established by others.

Thu Jun 11, 09:14:00 PM EDT  
Anonymous Ms. Audacity O. Hope said...

I post occasionally and always under a pseudonym and I would never call that courageous.

The fact that my fellow anonymity seeker, "Anonymous," (see post above), declares their "courage is not defined by the parameters established by others" makes me wonder, what parameters s/he uses to define courage that allows them to label themselves, a writer of anonymous, insulting posts with threatening undercurrents, courageous?

Fri Jun 12, 02:52:00 PM EDT  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Most importantly, Mr. Sullivan needs to FREE Pete (anybody for picketing outside the office with FREE PETE signs? That was a joke.)

The Inquirer has let the cat out of the bag about the state of affairs in Chestnut Hill and members of the business community participated. Front Page.

Can't Pete be free to report reality in Chestnut Hill?

Do that, Walter, and everyone is behind you.

Mon Jun 15, 10:55:00 PM EDT  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

MAOH, perhaps you missed the context of the comment about courage, i.e., as a response to the fifth comment posted under “The Record Shows …” The point was not that posting anonymously signified courage, merely that posting anonymously does not equate to an absence of courage or presence of sycophantism in the one who chose to post anonymously.

Regarding the balance of your comment, please show Anonymous the error of her/his ways. Surely Anonymous would be thoroughly chastised if you were to provide some specificity how a description of the law or anything else in an Anonymous post was “threatening,” or more insulting than the items to which the Anonymous comments were offered in response.

Tue Jun 16, 08:35:00 PM EDT  
Anonymous Walt Sullivan said...

Ed: You are entitled to my response to your 5 suggestions.
(1) See my response to Jim Foster on this blog. The Positively CH slate campaign was pitiful and must have cost little. One ad in the Local and some nice but useless buttons. If Richard paid for them, it amounted to nothing. No "electoral largesse." 18 won in a field of only 20. No scandal here.
(2) You mean everybody on the PCH slate must recuse themselves? No. Bylaws IX A do not require and would not permit that. Richard of course must and will recuse himself. I'm open to suggestions, not rhetoric but grounded on the Bylaws, as to whether that means only that he may not vote or whether it means that he may not be there during discussions on the matter. We have always held the former.
(3) Many people on and off the Board come to me all the time with ideas which they think would improve the Local. Nobody has expressed "plans" to change it.
(4) I deny your premise. No "unrelenting pressure from the Board ..." If there be "fear" among employees, there is no reason for it and there will be no cause for it while I am President. Our Bylaws guarantee the independence of an editor prior to publication. After publication, the Owner/Publisher CHCA may evaluate him including based on the overall content of the Local. I am after nobody's job but can guarantee nobody's job. Each employee of ours is valued but is subject to fair Personnel Evaluations. Each supervisor evaluates those under him/her. The EC evaluates the Community Manager, the AP, and the Editor.
(5) What exactly do you mean by a "forensic accounting?" As I understand it, it costs real money and is ussually done only when you have some idea of what you are looking for. Tell me specifically, not rhetorically, what we should be looking for.
(6) Not to dredge up matters going back to 2005-06 and earlier already understood and re-hashed over and over again. See my response to Jim Foster on this blog. I have vowed that no such concerns will arise during my Administration. If they were to arise, I'd appoint an Oversight Committee in a heartbeat.
I hope these answers satisfy you. If they don't, they at least tell you where I stand.

Wed Jun 17, 12:16:00 AM EDT  
Blogger Jeremiade said...

Damn Walter you redeem yourself in the most obscure places. I keep an open mind that you might be OK.

Wed Jun 17, 07:04:00 PM EDT  
Anonymous Walt Sullivan said...

Jeremiade: Thanks for the open mind on your part. That's all I can ask. I'll do my best to show that I can be even better than OK.

Thu Jun 18, 01:05:00 AM EDT  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Northwest Notebook,
Chestnut Hill Notebook,
Pointed Observations,
and NADAWeb.

The Crew

Look for the signature at the end of the post.

We accept donations in support of our work.
E-mail us at Northwest Notebook.

Readership since
January 28, 2006

Powered by Blogger

Rules on Posting

To make comments on a post, hit comments. Don't be a wanker, though. No name, no play. Ain't life a bitch when you can't hide behind something?

Save the Internet

Keep an eye on legislation affecting the Internet.
Go to Save the Internet

Visit the West Mt. Airy Neighbors.
Check Out Adult Education Classes Philadelphia.

Northwest Notebook (formerly Chestnut Hill Notebook)
This site is part of the
Philly Future community.
Don't forget Germantown Radio.
Check out other Philadelphia weblogs in our region.

Blogtalk Radio br Site Feed

Earlier posts are in the Archives by Month.

Powered by Blogger