Another day, another McDonald revelation

The Virginian-Pilot had another front page, above-the-fold, article about Norfolk’s Commissioner of the Revenue Sharon McDonald.  This time, it is a hiring and spending freeze ordered by City Manager Regina Williams. The order came as the result of McDonald transferred an employee who accompanied her on trips to Richmond from the city’s payroll to the state’s – a move which resulted in a 5% raise for the young man.

But it was this part of the story that caught my eye:

McDonald has also refused to provide information to The Virginian-Pilot on Neill’s travel expenses.

On July 12, the newspaper filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking copies of Neill’s expenses when he accompanied her to Richmond.

McDonald was required to respond by July 19. On July 30, she e-mailed the newspaper seeking permission to provide the documents after Sanderlin’s audit is done.

[..]

The Pilot denied her request and McDonald was told that she needed to provide the documents by Monday afternoon. “You do not have the option to delay a response,” Assistant City Attorney Tasha Scott warned McDonald in an e-mail last week. “You could be held personally liable with a civil penalty of $250-$1,000 for willfully and knowingly withholding the requested documents.”

The FOIA law is pretty clear: McDonald had five working days to produce the records or respond. That she didn’t respond until the ninth day after the deadline means she has already violated the law. I suspect if she produces the records, no one will pursue the civil penalty, but that is not as it should be. The law is the law – and it is there for a reason. The Virginian-Pilot should follow through on this.

Calls for McDonald’s resignation are sure to increase with this latest article. One such letter to the editor appeared in Monday’s newspaper. The writer makes reference to her removal, should she not resign, the procedures for which can be found here.

UPDATE: Michael Muhammad has emailed me a copy of his unedited letter to the editor.

Regarding the series of revelations that have appeared lately on Channel 10 News and in the Virginian-Pilot concerning the conduct and questionable use of public funds by Norfolk Commissioner of the Revenue, Sharon MacDonald, a deep groundswell of concern and protest is growing throughout the city.

First we were all shocked to learn that Mrs. MacDonald showed the unbelievably poor judgment of entering a closed, untended business establishment in Rappahannock and removing merchandise without permission and in the owner’s absence. Does Madame Commissioner have some extralegal right to go trying the back door of an obviously closed business? How does one arrogate to oneself the authority to preempt all lawful rights of property? Does she believe the constitution has invested in her some supervening legal powers?

Next, before the dust from that debacle could settle, we learn that our Commissioner has been traveling to Richmond (for several years) to the legislative session (at taxpayer expense) for reasons seemingly known only to her. Why do we need our Commissioner of the Revenue, whose duties and responsibilities are clearly delineated by the state Constitution, to “lobby” for the city when the city already has an expert on staff for that purpose? Why wasn’t she here in Norfolk attending to the duties that the voters did give her?

The mayor has stated clearly that the City Council neither asked nor authorized Mrs. MacDonald to represent the City of Norfolk in any way at any time. The City Manager has echoed that identical fact on behalf of the administration. The city’s own staff professional in inter-governmental relations has said that Mrs. MacDonald was essentially in the way of authorized, informed lobbying. Her unwanted, unwarranted, bungling interference almost cost the city a million dollars. Her tenure in office is marked by repeated overreaching. Her arrogance and hubris has even led her to a Machiavellian power grab to take over the City Democratic Committee (which expelled her), trying to personally select quisling leaders for other communities, and attempting to run other constitutional offices.

Finally, we learn that a young male staff member has accompanied Mrs. MacDonald on all these lavish junkets to Richmond, meaning that two people were absent from their appointed posts instead of just one. At a time when essential services are being reduced or cut all over the city, Mrs. MacDonald has splurged profligately at the taxpayers’ expense. She obviously believes that the office brings personal privilege to her, and not public obligation to the people; she clearly recognizes no accountability to the taxpayers or anyone else.

Sharon MacDonald has abused and betrayed the trust of the citizens of Norfolk. Having disgraced (and embarrassed) us, she should do the only honorable thing. Mrs. MacDonald: Spare this beleaguered city further scandal and spare yourself further scrutiny. Resign, please. Absent such an honorable and proper exit, the people must undertake a petition drive to remove you from office under the provisions of Article 1, Section § 24.2-233 of the Code of Virginia.