Disgusting behavior by City of Falls Church leaders

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have yet to see anyone denigrating the so-called "FACTS team" come up with any real evidence or factual information about that indicates the FACTS candidates are wrong, incorrect, slanderous, or twisted.

Smerdon herself has explained very eloquently and passionately why she Supports the Girls, that has nothing to do with getting elected. She has laid out very clearly data indicating there is need for improvement by FCC school leadership that to date has been ignored or publicly un-addressed by those in positions of authority. She has articulated why she and others co-sponsored a petition to ask a neutral third-party to interpret policies that school system leadership believes give them the right to interfere with a committee that provides community voice (and that also seems to collect and interpret data better than they do--the horror).

No one posting on DCUM has offered clear articulation of any specific wrongdoing, bullying, or lying perpetrated by those listed on the FACTS site. Instead, the "FACTS people" have provided clear documentation of insufficient information and transparency in leadership's public documents used to justify very big, expensive decisions such as school system budgets, funding allocations, and teacher retention decisions. The FACTS candidates have posted these documents online. The biggest local newspaper FCNP has failed in its journalistic duty to investigate and report on these actual facts, because FCNP is arm-in-arm with people who want to continue the status quo.

I believe the only voices that have explicitly tied the We Support the Girls folks to an election are, well, the families of the girls. They've stated who they support and why.

It is no wonder that those decrying "FACTS candidates" are merely asserting this group is of bad character and describe them with negative adjectives rather than offering real information to support these conclusions. Because there is no real information. The lack of real information seems to be an endemic pattern.

Well, you get what you vote for.

My issue with the FC Post (note, I am not referring to the "FACTS Team" and never have) is that they claim to be transparent and data driven yet they cherry pick what data are presented in order to make the desired point. Everyone knows the FCNP does that but the FCPost acts like they don't.

As only one example, the recent article on school enrollment and the role of apartments and mixed-use developments is very misleading. By lumping all mixed use development together, it implies that ALL of the new developments are disproportionately contributing to increased school enrollment, which isn't the case. The type of housing matters (condo vs apartment, unit size, etc) and the surge in enrollment is primarily comes from certain types of housing. There is also no mention of what the rest of the geographic area is doing in terms of school enrollment increases. The entire area is seeing increases in enrollment and the increases started before these mixed use developments were built.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have yet to see anyone denigrating the so-called "FACTS team" come up with any real evidence or factual information about that indicates the FACTS candidates are wrong, incorrect, slanderous, or twisted.

Smerdon herself has explained very eloquently and passionately why she Supports the Girls, that has nothing to do with getting elected. She has laid out very clearly data indicating there is need for improvement by FCC school leadership that to date has been ignored or publicly un-addressed by those in positions of authority. She has articulated why she and others co-sponsored a petition to ask a neutral third-party to interpret policies that school system leadership believes give them the right to interfere with a committee that provides community voice (and that also seems to collect and interpret data better than they do--the horror).

No one posting on DCUM has offered clear articulation of any specific wrongdoing, bullying, or lying perpetrated by those listed on the FACTS site. Instead, the "FACTS people" have provided clear documentation of insufficient information and transparency in leadership's public documents used to justify very big, expensive decisions such as school system budgets, funding allocations, and teacher retention decisions. The FACTS candidates have posted these documents online. The biggest local newspaper FCNP has failed in its journalistic duty to investigate and report on these actual facts, because FCNP is arm-in-arm with people who want to continue the status quo.

I believe the only voices that have explicitly tied the We Support the Girls folks to an election are, well, the families of the girls. They've stated who they support and why.

It is no wonder that those decrying "FACTS candidates" are merely asserting this group is of bad character and describe them with negative adjectives rather than offering real information to support these conclusions. Because there is no real information. The lack of real information seems to be an endemic pattern.

Well, you get what you vote for.

My issue with the FC Post (note, I am not referring to the "FACTS Team" and never have) is that they claim to be transparent and data driven yet they cherry pick what data are presented in order to make the desired point. Everyone knows the FCNP does that but the FCPost acts like they don't.

As only one example, the recent article on school enrollment and the role of apartments and mixed-use developments is very misleading. By lumping all mixed use development together, it implies that ALL of the new developments are disproportionately contributing to increased school enrollment, which isn't the case. The type of housing matters (condo vs apartment, unit size, etc) and the surge in enrollment is primarily comes from certain types of housing. There is also no mention of what the rest of the geographic area is doing in terms of school enrollment increases. The entire area is seeing increases in enrollment and the increases started before these mixed use developments were built.

Where is the correct data? Who has it, who provides it? Can anyone get their hands on it? This is part of the problem. Who has the data. I believe some of the FACTS candidates are saying: Residents need more information to know what they're getting into. There is a paucity of important information. Some people in authority are not insisting on or failing to present to constituents full information--either on purpose or because they are not knowledgeable enough to do so. Lord knows FCC residents are paying some of the highest taxes in Virginia. Where is the money going? Who is and isn't paying? What will happen when XYZ is developed? Besides asserting that "development" is a good thing, what kind of development, and how will this specific development impact short- and long-term outcomes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have yet to see anyone denigrating the so-called "FACTS team" come up with any real evidence or factual information about that indicates the FACTS candidates are wrong, incorrect, slanderous, or twisted.

Smerdon herself has explained very eloquently and passionately why she Supports the Girls, that has nothing to do with getting elected. She has laid out very clearly data indicating there is need for improvement by FCC school leadership that to date has been ignored or publicly un-addressed by those in positions of authority. She has articulated why she and others co-sponsored a petition to ask a neutral third-party to interpret policies that school system leadership believes give them the right to interfere with a committee that provides community voice (and that also seems to collect and interpret data better than they do--the horror).

No one posting on DCUM has offered clear articulation of any specific wrongdoing, bullying, or lying perpetrated by those listed on the FACTS site. Instead, the "FACTS people" have provided clear documentation of insufficient information and transparency in leadership's public documents used to justify very big, expensive decisions such as school system budgets, funding allocations, and teacher retention decisions. The FACTS candidates have posted these documents online. The biggest local newspaper FCNP has failed in its journalistic duty to investigate and report on these actual facts, because FCNP is arm-in-arm with people who want to continue the status quo.

I believe the only voices that have explicitly tied the We Support the Girls folks to an election are, well, the families of the girls. They've stated who they support and why.

It is no wonder that those decrying "FACTS candidates" are merely asserting this group is of bad character and describe them with negative adjectives rather than offering real information to support these conclusions. Because there is no real information. The lack of real information seems to be an endemic pattern.

Well, you get what you vote for.

My issue with the FC Post (note, I am not referring to the "FACTS Team" and never have) is that they claim to be transparent and data driven yet they cherry pick what data are presented in order to make the desired point. Everyone knows the FCNP does that but the FCPost acts like they don't.

As only one example, the recent article on school enrollment and the role of apartments and mixed-use developments is very misleading. By lumping all mixed use development together, it implies that ALL of the new developments are disproportionately contributing to increased school enrollment, which isn't the case. The type of housing matters (condo vs apartment, unit size, etc) and the surge in enrollment is primarily comes from certain types of housing. There is also no mention of what the rest of the geographic area is doing in terms of school enrollment increases. The entire area is seeing increases in enrollment and the increases started before these mixed use developments were built.

Where is the correct data? Who has it, who provides it? Can anyone get their hands on it? This is part of the problem. Who has the data. I believe some of the FACTS candidates are saying: Residents need more information to know what they're getting into. There is a paucity of important information. Some people in authority are not insisting on or failing to present to constituents full information--either on purpose or because they are not knowledgeable enough to do so. Lord knows FCC residents are paying some of the highest taxes in Virginia. Where is the money going? Who is and isn't paying? What will happen when XYZ is developed? Besides asserting that "development" is a good thing, what kind of development, and how will this specific development impact short- and long-term outcomes?

The FACTS folks are a loud and nasty minority.

[Anonymous]

Again, just more adjectival sauce. No meat. Where is the beef to your beef?

I suppose "loud and nasty" means not willing to retreat when weak answers based on flimsy data and facts are presented, again and again? If that's the case, there is a long list of "loud and nasty" people in history who did and do a lot of good for the community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a horrible situation all around. But one of worst parts is that certain candidates in our election are using these poor girls as part of their own twisted campaign strategy. Apparently, "Support the Girls" only means those victims aligned with Sam Mabry and Johannah Barry -- the little girl attacked at Cherry Hill park and the kindergartener at St. James are apparently worthy of being ignored, because they haven't factored into this group's concern at all.

This statement is incorrect. The families of the girls have stated very clearly that they feel (and there's plenty of evidence to support) people in positions of FCC power were putting their influential eggs in the basket the politically connected pedophile, to help him appear better than he was. RATHER than supporting and helping the victims and potential future victims, they chose to extol the virtues of a man who was a political leader, married to the former mayer and current councilmember, molested 10 year old girls and his niece, and had apparently made moves to find out about hiring a hit man (JEEZUS). All this was known and knowable to the letter writers before they wrote their letters. This suggests that people may indeed have gotten much too cozy in their political offices. Now they've been outed. And the families of the victims themselves have articulated very well what happened and what is going on, but only were allowed to do so after the gag order was lifted from them. And they did so quickly so that voters knew what was going on. Not surprisingly, they have VERY STRONG opinions about who is running and who should NOT be voted in.

The editor of the FCNP himself writes articles in favor of establishment politics in FCC, and wouldn't you know, he's also politically connected to establishment officeholders and is himself one of the pedophile-supporting letter writers. He and his newspaper are not objective news sources. He writes with a point of view and positions his pieces in such a way that people he attacks or makes insinuations about have to come out to defend themselves. Do you remember that line from the Sandra Bullock movie? Something like: "I know he/she didn't do it. I just want to hear him deny it." That's what the FCNP is doing -- articulating or insinuating untruths and then putting good people in positions of having to provide evidence and proof the newspaper is wrong. This is intentional and purposeful nasty journalism.

People in power (and those who support them) are afraid that they will be ousted. They do not want to appear ruffled and riled up, and they want to appear to rise above nasty politics. In fact, the FCNP paper is doing the nasty campaigning for them by authoring slanted, non-researched articles on city and school board incidents, issues, and candidates. And, in addition, some in power are using quiet channels of authority (e.g., re-writing policies, mis-interpreting policies) to get their own twisted little politics done. It is very underhanded and under the radar. People are trying to bring it to radar level, and it is very difficult to do. The parents of the victims themselves are among these people trying to air out what is actually very dirty laundry, and some are very wrongfully accusing them of underhandedness. You can see how twisted this is.

There are very good people with new to the political sphere who want to hold local leadership accountable at all levels -- moral, ethical, political, and procedural. Look for them.

This times 1,000,000.

Falls Church's so-called "leadership" and their defender, that slimy pig Nick Benton, are rotten, rotten, rotten to its very core, and need to be cleansed.

[Anonymous]

The results are in. Sam Mabry got the fewest votes of any of the Council candidates, despite being very well funded (he had more Facebook ads than I could count, for example).

Personally, I was looking for some new blood but not the FACTS crowd. I want thoughtful development so that we can continue to fund our schools without higher property taxes. Our enrollment will grow - with or without more of the mixed-use developments because seniors are leaving, families are buying those houses, tearing them down, and bringing in 2 or 3 kids. It's happening all the time.

I am shocked Duncan won. I was going to vote for him and then couldn't - voted for Barry instead, because Mabry has been so obnoxious during this campaign. I like Phil and think he's got a generally good approach, but the letter on behalf of Gardner showed terrible judgement in my opinion.

[Anonymous]

PP here - oh, and yes, IMO all the "newspapers" are a f**king joke. It's really frustrating. I'm a smart, well educated person who lives in politics and it's so difficult to get at the truth because our papers are so biased and awful.

[Anonymous]

I truly cannot believe that the City residents re-elected Duncan. I don't think I can accept that I am surrounded by people who didn't care that he supported a convicted child molester rather than protecting the people in the community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I truly cannot believe that the City residents re-elected Duncan. I don't think I can accept that I am surrounded by people who didn't care that he supported a convicted child molester rather than protecting the people in the community.

I am guessing a lot of people actually did not know. Again, I go back to the horrible so-called paper we have here. It's SO biased, it's SO poorly written, that (I believe) a lot of people just recycle it. The candidates who tried to make hay of it with the signs were so over the top that people tuned it out.

Also, while at the end of the day I did not vote for Duncan, it was a very hard decision for me because I just don't agree with Johannah Barry or Sam Mabry's approach to economic development. I really didn't like Mabry's style, so he was my last choice. I ended up holding my nose and voting for Barry, because I just couldn't vote for Duncan. But others may have decided their views on economic development and growth trumped Duncan's bad judgement in writing a letter asking for lenience for a long-time friend (no excuses, but I'm guessing he thought Gardner was innocent. The letter was written before a lot of stuff had come out).

I'm just hoping the city can move on and find a positive path forward so we can solve the issues that matter - infrastructure, taxes, economic development and growth, and school quality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I truly cannot believe that the City residents re-elected Duncan. I don't think I can accept that I am surrounded by people who didn't care that he supported a convicted child molester rather than protecting the people in the community.

+1,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I truly cannot believe that the City residents re-elected Duncan. I don't think I can accept that I am surrounded by people who didn't care that he supported a convicted child molester rather than protecting the people in the community.

...But others may have decided their views on economic development and growth trumped Duncan's bad judgement in writing a letter asking for lenience for a long-time friend (no excuses, but I'm guessing he thought Gardner was innocent. The letter was written before a lot of stuff had come out).

Alas, Gardner had been found guilty already, and there was no doubt that he had molested those girls. There even had been notice that Gardner had made contact with a hit man. The letters were written at sentencing.

[Anonymous]

I guess molesters run falls church city

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess molesters run falls church city

I'm sad to say I know of others (not in FCC) who have found that speaking out against molestation is a difficult thing to do, with many people who should know better hoping to sweep such ugliness under the rug. Pleas for "civility" (aka "stop raising such a ruckus") are common, I think. It is hard to look ugliness in the face, especially when it's someone you thought you knew and revered. And, apparently, especially hard when it's someone who is or has strong ties to people in power.

The very good news is the We Support the Girls campaign is still up and running. The kids are tough, and the parents are tough. It is a very good cause that gets shamefully little attention in our society, where the numbers of abused and molested children are woefully underreported, and, I suspect, under-supported. It's time people had the backs of the real victims and heroes everywhere.

Meanwhile, the "silencing" campaign continues on other issues. Thankfully, there are good people in this little city who are informed citizens and not easily deterred.

[Anonymous]

FCC resident here. I "support the girls". I am very glad Gardner is in jail. What does it mean that the campaign is up and running? What's left to do? The criminal is behind bars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I truly cannot believe that the City residents re-elected Duncan. I don't think I can accept that I am surrounded by people who didn't care that he supported a convicted child molester rather than protecting the people in the community.

...But others may have decided their views on economic development and growth trumped Duncan's bad judgement in writing a letter asking for lenience for a long-time friend (no excuses, but I'm guessing he thought Gardner was innocent. The letter was written before a lot of stuff had come out).

Alas, Gardner had been found guilty already, and there was no doubt that he had molested those girls. There even had been notice that Gardner had made contact with a hit man. The letters were written at sentencing.

I don't think the hit man stuff had come out FWIW. I disagree with writing the letter and didn't vote for Duncan, to be clear.