So says The Virginian-Pilot:
McDonald, elected in 2009 to a fourth four-year term, is either defiant or oblivious to the wishes of her constituents to a degree unprecedented in recent memory. Or she just doesn’t care enough to do the right thing. Or she thought nobody would notice.
Regardless, the only conclusion that reasonably follows is that McDonald doesn’t want any more time in office. Voters should oblige her at the first opportunity.
What prompted this editorial was this story in Saturday’s paper. (The website doesn’t do it justice. Take a look at how it appeared in the paper – above the fold in the Hampton Roads section.) I guess enough is enough for the newspaper.
The Pilot didn’t mention it but voters do not have to wait until November 2013 to remove McDonald. Constitutional officers, such as McDonald, cannot be recalled. They can, however, be removed. The provision is in § 24.2-233. (An explanation of the process is in § 24.2-235.)
In the meantime, can somebody in the General Assembly introduce a bill to outlaw such nepotism?
UPDATE: Included the accompanying editorial cartoon from today’s printed paper (click to enlarge).
What took the paper so long?
Posted by Louis Eisenberg | Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 9:57 amBecause, as I was told, they will support the incumbent, unless there is a compelling reason not to do so.
Guess they finally decided her actions have risen to compelling. Even though they have gone on for over 13 years.
Posted by Doug Knack | Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 10:04 amAnd if she was a Republican, they never would’ve supported her in the first place.
Posted by Brian Kirwin | Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 12:25 pmhow quickly you forget! Think back to the last cycle endorsements and you will see you’re incorrect on this.
Posted by Doug Knack | Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 1:17 pmShe’s a Republican?
Posted by Brian Kirwin | Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 2:38 pmI’ll have to reply to me, Brian, since we exceeded the reply chain.
I wasn’t talking about Sharon. The paper didn’t endorse in that race. I was talking second district congressional.
Posted by Doug Knack | Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 4:30 pm“Sharon McDonald … is an elected constitutional officer and her hiring policies are not subject to city oversight.”
TO WHOM IS SHE RESPONSIBLE? PLS GIVE NAME AND POSITION AND EMAIL ADDRESS–SO WE CAN WRITE AND EXPRESS OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PROTEST (OR SUPPORT?) HER BEHAVIOR.
Thanks, G. Cooper
Posted by Gerald Cooper | Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 3:16 pmIf you come up with that, let me know.
For years the state has said they don’t control the Commissioner, the city says they don’t control the Commissioner, so she believes no one controls. The only body that can reverse a decision she makes and the only body that can remove her, before an election is the Norfolk Circuit Court.
Posted by Doug Knack | Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 4:33 pmShe is accountable only to the voters.
Posted by vjp | Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 9:52 pmDoug, don’t be fooled. They endorsed Rigell only because they were ticked at Glenn Nye for voting against their pet issues. Had Nye vote for Obama’s stuff, they would’ve endorsed him in a heartbeat.
Posted by Brian Kirwin | Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 5:45 pmThis also explains why they endorsed Bob McDonnell for AG in 2005.
Posted by Randy Klear | Thursday, January 13, 2011, 12:24 amThe cartoon is priceless!!! Thanks Walt Taylor for huge LAUGH OUT LOUD!!! Reminds me of the Christmas tree ornament we found for our middle child many years ago…it read, “Dear Santa, Define Good”. Guess with Sharon McDonald, we need to define when!!!
Posted by Rediford New | Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 9:18 pmYes, Virginia Consitutional officers are pretty much a law unto themselves, accountable only to the voters. And some of them, such as clerks of the circuit cort, aren’t accountable even to the voters very frequently, every eight years.
Posted by Steve Vaughan | Thursday, January 13, 2011, 11:34 am