Like Norfolk and Chesapeake, Portsmouth will be holding municipal elections next week. Better late than never, the Virginian Pilot has been focusing on these races over the past week or so. A couple of things worthy of mention.
Endorsement retracted
In a stunning turnaround, the Virginian Pilot retracted its endorsement of Portsmouth School Board member Sheri Bailey. Just last week, the Pilot had this to say:
On the School Board, progress also has been the story of the last four years. The incumbents on the May 6 ballot – Sheri Bailey, James Bridgeford, Elizabeth Daniels and Keith Nance Sr. – have supported a bulldog superintendent, David Stuckwisch, and helped boost school accreditation from 20 percent in 2004 to 80 percent today. Each deserves another term in office.
But a story in Thursday’s paper cast doubts in the minds of the Editorial Board.
A nonprofit organization run by School Board member Sheri Bailey has failed to pay the school system more than $6,000 in rental fees dating back to June 2006, school division records show.
This prompted the Pilot to say today:
But Bailey’s failure to ensure her group paid its bills to the school system is sufficient reason for voters to reject her bid for a second term.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen the Pilot retract an endorsement before. But it begs the question: how come the Editoral Board was unaware of this?
Last fall, the Pilot announced that they would no longer endorse in presidential contests. Here’s what they said at the time (emphasis mine):
Nothing we do is more controversial than endorsing candidates, and so we must be able to argue from intimate knowledge, knowing the context and history, and with an understanding of the specific concerns of our neighborhoods.
[…]
It would be different if we covered the presidential candidates, or had the access we do to local and state political leaders.
So their justification for not endorsing in the presidential race is that they lack intimate knowledge and access to the contenders. Have they not just demonstrated that they also lack that intimate knowledge of local candidates?
I believe the answer to that is a resounding yes.
Folks, do your own homework and don’t rely on the Pilot’s endorsements to mean anything more than any other opinion that you might read or hear.
Lucas’ $10,000 donation
The huge tabloid-style headline in Friday’s local section had a picture of Sen. L. Louise Lucas and former councilman Charles Whitehurst. (I don’t know why they don’t reproduce these in the online version, especially when ePilot is not working properly right now.) Lucas donated $10,000 to Whitehurst’s campaign. According to the Pilot, she’s buying influence. Lucas, if you recall, wants to build a hotel and conference center and wants the city to chip in.
You know, if Lucas was really trying to buy influence, don’t you think she would have funneled her donation through other folks in order to avoid this scrutiny? Has it ever occurred to the Pilot that not everyone has an ulterior motive and that perhaps Lucas just wants to see her guy win?
The article says that “[t]he question arose at a candidates’ forum Wednesday night. Whitehurst addressed the donation and said he would recuse himself from voting on the project.”
There goes that “buying influence” theory.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Bailey declared bankruptcy in 1997 and 2000 and still the Pilot endorsed her in the first place? That editorial board seems to shift priorities with the wind.
The editorial board favors incumbents. They are consistent on that, at least.
I seem to remember a Republican incumbent who had a bankruptcy that they felt differently about.
IIRC, that was just one factor. And, of course, it was a different race.