The vetting of Pete Buttigieg

NBC reports that Republicans and even other Democrats are seeking “dirt” on Pete Buttigieg. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/rivals-are-scrambling-dig-dirt-pete-buttigieg-n997031

That is as it should be. This is the vetting season. We need to assess how each candidate will stand up to the scrutiny we know is coming.

    So far, so good. 

Attacks on Pete’s 1,000 houses program turned out to be overwrought, as Washington Monthly recently demonstrated. See 

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/04/21/how-the-media-is-getting-mayor-petes-south-bend-gentrification-story-wrong/

At last night’s CNN Town Hall, Pete was asked about the demotion of South Bend’s African American police chief. He gave a forthright answer that I believe should satisfy those who fear that he is insufficiently concerned about matters involving race relations. See https://youtu.be/IAWVY7PXR0E. 

It was fascinating to watch Pete’s hour (

 https://youtu.be/ebgxZ3xfeM0) after watching the sessions with Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Kamala Harris.  I generally like them all.  Each of them had their moments, but each of them also had moments that led me to question how they would do in the general election Armageddon next year. 

Of course, it is unlikely that that we will find a “perfect” candidate. But so far, at least, I think the least likely candidate — the 37 year old mayor of South Bend — is far closer to perfection than the others, both in terms of electability and the potential to be the transformative president we need. 

CHERRYWOOD HOMEOWNERS: PLEASE VOTE "NO" ON THE PROPOSED BY-LAWS CHANGES AND "YES" ON THE PARCEL E POND TRANSFER

CHERRYWOOD HOMEOWNERS: 

* PLEASE VOTE NO OR ABSTAIN ON THE BY-LAW DECLARATION VOTE

  TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS AS HOMEOWNERS

* PLEASE VOTE YES ON THE PARCEL E POND TRANSFER

(Note: The author of this piece has been a member of the Cherrywood Homeowners Association Board of Directors since October of last year, but the opinions expressed are entirely his own.)

INTRODUCTION

In the recently-sent Cherrywood Homeowners Association (HOA) newsletter, an article at p. 3 urges members of the HOA to vote, yea or nay, on a package of changes to the HOA by-laws (also known as Declarations).  The article recognizes that we currently have “a very limited declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions that have served us very well over the years.”  The proposed changes would, for the first time, add a number of additional restrictions. The article states that “[m]any of these changes have been discussed at the Association’s annual meetings,” but it fails to note that these meetings are typically attended by fewer than 10% of HOA homeowners. Nor, as far as I can recall or determine, were there ever any votes at those meetings asking the HOA Board of Directors (the Board) to seek new restrictions.  Nevertheless, last year the Board decided to ask its law firm to draft such restrictions to be added to the By-Laws.

My wife and I have lived in Cherrywood since we bought our home here in 1986. A big part of our decision to buy here was that there were virtually no restrictions on homeowners’ decisions as to what to do with their homes. In 2013, I retired as a career attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice.  At the October 2018 HOA Annual Meeting, I was elected to the Board.

Below, I briefly explain some of the reasons why I believe the proposed Declarations (By-Laws) changes should be rejected.

WHAT THE PROPOSED BY-LAWS CHANGES WOULD DO

The proposed changes include significant restrictions on the freedom of homeowners to lease any part of their homes, including requirements that homeowners identify to the Board the identities of “tenants” in their homes. According to the proposed Section 4(a) of Article IV, “A ‘tenant’ shall include any person occupying the Lot other than the Owner or a member of the Owner’s household, even if the tenant has not paid any consideration.”  “Household” is not defined.  So, for example, the identity of an uncle or cousin living in your house would have to be provided to the Board.

The law firm fashioned a package of changes, which also included probably-unenforceable restrictions of telecommunications towers and prohibition of accessory apartments.  The package also included a variety of provisions that would make it easier to bring lawsuits against homeowners, and provide leverage that, in my view, could make it, as a practical matter, impossible for homeowners to challenge efforts by the Board to enforce the new restrictions, regardless of the restrictions’ validity under County law. As fashioned by the law firm, all the changes must be voted on as a package; voters are not permitted to vote for some, but not all.  

STATE OF THE VOTING AND REASONS TO VOTE NO ON THE BY-LAWS CHANGES

These proposals, which were sent to HOA homeowners on September 19, 2018, may be found at https://tinyurl.com/cherrywoodhoa.  To take effect, they must be approved by 60% of the HOA’s 608 households.

At the October 24, 2018 annual Cherrywood HOA meeting (attended by about 7% of the household members) there was an extensive discussion of these proposals.  The proposed changes were to be voted on as a single package, even though they dealt with several distinct issues and would, for the first time since the creation of the HOA more than 30 years ago, include significant restrictions on our freedom to use our homes as we please. This concern was voiced by many in attendance.

I shared these concerns at the Annual Meeting, and for that reason I stood for election to the Board, and was elected. I have been impressed with the dedication of the Board members, who carry on the necessary, but largely unnoticed and likely under-appreciated work for the community.

But on this matter, I think that the Board’s attorneys have fashioned a package (including nearly-impenetrable legalese) that would ill-serve our community, and it is not at all clear to me that the attorneys fully explained all the implications to the Board. Indeed, at the February 2019 Board meeting, some members said that they thought that the identification-of-tenants provision of proposed Section 4(a) was already required by the County, and one member provided me with a provision of the County Code (Section 29-51(h) that he thought confirmed that impression. I read the provision, and discovered that nothing in County law requires that the names of tenants be submitted to the County.  I confirmed that understanding with the appropriate official of the County Department of Housing and Community Affairs. 

In the nearly six months since the last Annual Meeting, nowhere near 60% of households have submitted ballots to approve the By-Laws changes.  The January HOA Newsletter urged approval, but as of mid-January only 29% of households had approved.  As of March 14, only 34% had approved.

It takes 60% to approve a change in the By-Laws, and for good reason.  People moved here, in part, because the HOA does not impose restrictions on individual freedom. As noted above, the proposed By-Laws change package includes such restrictions. People have not moved to Cherrywood to join what effectively could become a form of sub-government in Montgomery County.  So our foundational documents provide that any move to change that dynamic must be overwhelmingly supported. The role of the HOA and its Board is presently limited to housekeeping matters.  These matters are important, and have been well-carried out by Board members for more than 30 years.  The proposed package of new By-Law provisions does not address an actual problem in our community.

PLEASE VOTE TO APPROVE THE PARCEL E STORM WATER MANAGEMENT POND TRANSFER PROPOSAL

I do want to note one other matter, still pending from last October’s Annual Meeting.  That is the vote on the Parcel E Storm Water Management Pond Transfer, which is discussed at p. 2 of the Spring 2019 HOA newsletter.  There is a large pond near the Cherrywood Playground and Soccer field that is owned by the HOA, but as to which we have both liability and expenses, even though the ownership in no way benefits the HOA.  The County has agreed to take ownership of and responsibility for this Parcel E, but, under our By-Laws, we need a 2/3 positive vote to complete the deal.  As of March 14, 43% of households (261) had voted in favor, and only 6 households had voted against it.  Everyone on the HOA Board agrees that it would be useful to complete the transfer, so it would be good if those who have not yet voted on the Parcel E Pond Transfer now do so to complete the deal.

If anyone has any questions, please contact me at FishbackHOA@gmail.com

David Fishback

April 18, 2019

Thoughts on the current exchanges between Pete Buttigieg and Mike Pence

In following the recent public exchanges between Pete Buttigieg and Mike Pence over religion and public policies surrounding LGBTQ matters, I have been reminded of an exchange I had locally in Montgomery County more than fifteen years ago.

         In January 2004, I was Chair of the Montgomery County Board of Education’s Citizens Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development. One of the Committee’s principal responsibilities was to review secondary health education curriculum as it pertained to matters of sexual orientation and gender identity – matters which at that time were absent from the curriculum (or from any other discussion in the school system). 

         In the course of our discussions, two very conservative members of the Committee offered materials from the Corporate Resource Council, which asserted that homosexuality was a disease and should not be viewed in anything other than a negative light. Michelle Turner, a newer member of the Committee (who I knew saw herself as a devout Christian) told me that she thought we should follow the advice of the Corporate Resource Council.  At that time, I did not know how fully formed her views on sexual orientation were.  Below I reproduce the response I sent to her.

         She was not convinced, and she later revealed herself to be a principal anti-gay activist, and ally of Phyllis Schlafly, among others. After thorough examinations by the entire Committee, her and the other two conservative members’ views were rejected.  The Committee made recommendations to follow the wisdom of every mainstream American medical and mental health professional association in this area.  After an initially-successful attempt by the Alliance Defense Fund to derail the effort, the school system added useful material in 2007 and, in 2014, implemented a more wide-ranging approach.  See https://pflag.org/blog/curriculumvictorymontgomerycounty

         I found my January 23, 2004 exchange with Michelle (with home I always got along with personally), and thought it is at least somewhat a propos to the current “controversy.”  Here it is:

From my 1/23/04 E-Mail to Michelle Turner

     The Corporate Resource Council is affiliated with the Alliance Defense Fund, which describes itself as "a unique Christian legal organization that works to protect and defend traditional family values...."  It was founded in 1994 by a group including James Dobson of Focus on the Family. (http://www.alliancedefensefund.org)

     Focus on the Family states its position

on homosexuality as follows:

     "Are people born gay? Shouldn't we be tolerant of everyone? Can people change? Should they?  Amidst the barrage of questions, we must first turn to God's Word -- our ultimate authority -- for answers.  While the Bible clearly states that homosexuality runs contrary to God's plan for relationships, those who struggle with homosexual feelings are still God's children, in need of his forgiveness and healing.  Therefore, parents, families and churches have a responsibility to love the homosexual while clearly denouncing this lifestyle."

http://www.family.org.pplace/topics/a0025334.cfm

         While the constitutional doctrine of separation of church and state requires that we not impose a theology in our public

schools, the religious values each of us have certainly inform

our views.  Without getting into a long-winded discussion of at

what point religious views are or are not appropriate in

developing public school programs, I offer the following for your consideration in answer to the Focus on the Family statement, which, it seems to me, undergirds most of the materials submitted by Retta and Jackie that we have not yet voted on.

         In an old story, two cynics are said to have approached the great Jewish philosopher Hillel and challenged him to summarize the whole Torah (the Jewish holy books) while standing on one foot. Hillel replied, "What is hateful to you, do not do to another. The rest is commentary.  Go and learn."

         The two most often cited Biblical texts concerning homosexuality are both found in the book of Leviticus, where they are in the context of a larger section directing sexual behavior. First, it is written: "Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence." (Leviticus 18:22) The second citation is from Leviticus 20:13, where we read that "If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death - their blood guilt is upon them."  

         If Focus on the Family (FOTF) purports to follow the

precise word of Scripture, then presumably it should be

advocating capital punishment rather than "forgiveness and

healing."  Unless, of course, FOTF is limiting forgiveness and

healing to those who have "struggled" with homosexual feelings, but have never acted upon them.  Yet, I suspect that FOTF is not advocating -- and would not advocate -- that we should execute anyone engaging in homosexual activity.  But if FOTF does not so advocate, then it cannot say that it is simply turning to God's Word for the definitive answers.

         What it comes down to is this:  None of us really take every word of Scripture literally, and each of us who accept the Bible as part of our faith tradition must make a determination as to what in Scripture is useful and humane and, in the broadest sense, Godly.   This does place a great responsibility on every human being.  Freedom is a scary thing sometimes, but it is what America is based upon.   We cannot, in good conscience, simply say, "well, the Bible says so," without further exploration unless, for example, we are ready to execute anyone who has engaged in homosexual activity.  We really have to use the brains God has given us.  For what it is worth, my view is that the basic teachings we get from the Judeo-Christian tradition are the various versions of the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "What is hateful to you, do not do unto another").  I think that what we personally accept or decline to accept from words written down by people many centuries and even millenia ago should be dependent upon whether they comport with that Rule.

         A century and a half ago, even in America, a large number of people assumed that slavery was acceptable; and people used Scripture to justify it.

         A century ago, even in America, most people assumed that women should not be allowed to vote or have equal rights with men; and people used Scripture to justify it.

         A half-century ago, even in America, a large portion of our population believed that segregation of the races was the right thing to do; and people used Scripture to justify it.

         As we learn more and more about the human condition, if we are wise, we adapt our thinking to expand freedom and happiness in concert with the Golden Rule.

         All the rest is commentary.

Pete Buttigieg sure-footedly handles the first attack on his Presidential Campaign

This is how candidates in good faith forthrightly deal with the use of a phrase that some have used to take shots at them. 

The New York Times reports the following, from Pete Buttigieg’s South Bend State of the City Address in 2015:

“There is no contradiction between respecting the risks that police officers take every day in order to protect this community, and recognizing the need to overcome the biases implicit in a justice system that treats people from different backgrounds differently. We need to take both those things seriously, for the simple and profound reason that all lives matter.” 

In the last few days, there has been a stir over his use of the phrase “all lives matter,” devoid of the context in which he used the phrase – a context that explicitly recognized ”the biases implicit in a justice system that treats people from different backgrounds differently.”  

But rather than being defensive over the use of the phrase, discussing at length his support of policies that would benefit the African American community and his connections to the African American community, and explaining his intent and the context in which he used it (the typical and understandable approach most politicians would take), Buttigieg directly addressed the impact of the use of the phrase, telling reporters at the National Action Network conference the following:

“At that time, I was talking about a lot of issues around racial reconciliation in our community. What I did not understand at that time, was that phrase, just early into mid-2015, was coming to be viewed as a sort of counter-slogan to Black Lives Matter. And so, this statement, that seems very anodyne and something that nobody could be against, actually wound up being used to devalue what the Black Lives Matter movement was telling us. . . . . That is the contribution of Black Lives Matter, and it’s a reason, since learning about how that phrase was being used to push back on that activism, I’ve stopped using it in that context.”  See, also, here. for the video of his comments.

While arguably not as big a deal, and certainly not as grand, as Barack Obama’s March 2008  "A More Perfect Union" speech about the controversies surrounding his minister, Jeremiah Wright, Buttigieg’s handling of the issue shows the same thoughtfulness and wisdom.  This was Buttigieg’s first test in handling campaign adversity.  I believe he passed the test.

***********************************

Post Script:

Republican Never-Trumper Jennifer Rubin seems to have become reborn as she covers the 2020 Democratic Party landscape.  These two articles, from April 4 and 5, are quite something:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/04/buttigieg-shows-how-campaign-values-evangelicals-have-only-themselves-blame/?utm_term=.d65bf08f67e0

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/05/five-things-stacey-abrams-pete-buttigieg-get-than-most-pols-dont/?utm_term=.e8f0855a3262

For more background, see https://davidfishback.blogspot.com/2019/03/pete-buttigieg-links-feb-and-early.html