When confronted with the cold stark fact that Lexington Urban County Council 3rd District Representative Diane Lawless has the worst attendance record on council, some of her supporters just blithely assert that she has protected important programs in Lexington. They falsely suggest that she takes positions that respect those among us who are in the greatest need. Any leader has priorities.
What did Diane Lawless choose to vote against funding last year? Well, according to Lawless as quoted in the right-wing Kentucky Club for Growth, which wrote glowingly of her vote with the three other Republican council members, Lawless stated that: “while there are some good and worthwhile projects in the budget, we cannot afford them now.”
It’s good to know Lawless has priorities. Unfortunately, she and the other three Republicans on the council voted against funding for:
Lexington Human Rights Commission:
It is the purpose of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission to safeguard all individuals within Lexington-Fayette County from discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, disability, familial status and sexual orientation/gender identity in connection with employment, housing and public accommodations.
The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission shall serve as an investigative, consultative, educational, persuasive, and enforcement agency in order to guarantee equal opportunity for all people of the City of Lexington and Fayette County.
Then there’s the Hope Center, which just tries to help by giving Lexingtonians
- Food, shelter and clothing to people who are homeless.
- Recovery for those who are addicted.
- Health services for those who are sick.
- Diagnosis and treatment for those who are mentally ill.
- Employment services for those who can work.
- Transitional housing for those who are on their way back. Permanent affordable housing for those who need it.
- Housing, child care and higher education opportunity for single parent families.
Clearly, such programs are rightfully voted down as unimportant by Lawless and three others. It’s all about priorities.
Lawless also voted against funding Moveable Feast:
Moveable Feast Lexington prepares and delivers hot, freshly cooked meals, five days a week, to people living with AIDS/HIV-related illnesses as well as individuals who are patients of Hospice of the Bluegrass.
Clients can receive nutritional counseling, and menus are modified to address specific nutritional needs. We serve Lexington/Fayette County of Kentucky.
Individuals are served without regard to race, sexual orientation, political affiliation or national origin.
Free food for AIDS patients and hospice patients? What was the rest of the council thinking?
Lawless also voted against funding Lexington’s Chrysalis House. What does Chrysalis do?
More than 34 years and counting—that’s how long Chrysalis House has been saving families one life at a time. We could not do it without the generous support of the community. Chrysalis House specializes in treating substance dependent expecting mothers, allowing them to keep their newborns and toddlers with them while in treatment.
Chrysalis House is making a difference in so many ways. Graduates are staying sober, working in jobs that support their families, earning their GEDs, living in their own homes, and giving back to their community as their lives come full circle.
And against the Blue Grass Rape Crisis Center, whose site states:
The Bluegrass Rape Crisis Center (BRCC) is made up of people with diverse backgrounds, skills, and philosophies who are united by a commitment to end sexual violence.
While striving toward the long-range mission of eliminating sexual violence, BRCC provides comprehensive services to all victims and awareness education to the entire community.
Salvation Army of Lexington, which provides homeless services, food pantries, clothing banks, rent and utility assistance, holiday assistance, emergency disaster assistance, early learning centers, boys and girls clubs, camps, and music schools.
Baby Health Service, which began as Mother’s Milk Supply in 1914 to supply formula to infants of indigent families.
There are dozens of similar programs that the three Republicans and Lawless voted against funding. It’s all about priorities. Another loser?
Community Action Council, which combats poverty by offering opportunities for low-income people to achieve self-sufficiency and providing services so that each community member and family is able to reach their full potential. The Council works to serve the low income population through advocacy, service delivery and community involvement.
Public safety? Is that a priority for Lawless? Not last year, it wasn’t. The council voted to add back 11 security officers and several public information employees, plus a police recruiting class of 25 officers. Lawless and the three Republicans voted against that funding too.
After the council voted for the above programs, their budget had the items line item vetoed. And once again, Diane Lawless voted with the three Republicans against overriding the veto, and voted against funding the above programs and dozens of similar ones.
The most eloquent summation of why it is so wrong to not fund such programs came from another council member, Kevin Stinnett, who stated: to balance the city budget on the backs of “people who need us the most” was wrong, and he could not support that action.
So if there’s just not enough money to help those people, then for Diane Lawless, what IS an appropriate use of oh, say, $100,000 of taxpayers money?
How about an investigation and legal bills for a fraud claim that Diane Lawless says she didn’t realize she made? Can’t fund infant formula for indigent mothers, or rape crisis programs, or meals for AIDS patients, but it’s always good to spend $100,000, especially when Lawless later claimed she didn’t realize she had made the fraud allegations. The Herald Leader reported that:
The Urban County Council voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to halt spending on a lawsuit that blossomed from an investigation of fraud allegations made by a city employee.
One day after State Auditor Crit Luallen’s office released a report stating it found no evidence of fraud, the council voted to stop paying lawyers representing the city’s Internal Audit Board and an investigative committee of the council. The board and the committee were fighting over the council’s authority to subpoena the fraud allegations.
Meanwhile, several council members seemed shocked by the revelation in Luallen’s audit that a council member had a copy of the fraud allegations at least a month before the investigative committee was appointed.
…
After Councilman Jay McChord challenged his anonymous colleague to come forward, Councilwoman Diane Lawless said she had met with the state auditor and turned over a large stack of documents. However, she denied knowing the fraud allegations were among those documents.
“I didn’t know what I had,” she said. “That may sound strange, but as you know, a lot of my life is stranger than fiction.”
Asked Councilman Tom Blues, “Why take documents to the state auditor if you did not know what they were?”
Councilman Ed Lane told Lawless she could have provided the allegations to fellow council members. “It ended up we had an investigative committee, incurred legal fees and a lot of bad publicity,” he said.
Lexington deserves a council member who shows up, whose personal life isn’t stranger than fiction, whose priorities are feeding the hungry and the most desperately in need among our citizens, and not a council member who votes against funding such help while wasting $100,000 of taxpayers money on a fraudulent fraud allegation.
CORRECTION: After receiving some thoughtful input from someone who is respected, I correct myself on the use of the word “fraudulent” fraud allegation. Fraudulent is an extremely difficult intent to prove, and was not appropriate. As was pointed out, I agree that more appropriate words to describe Lawless’ actions would be a “bungled” or “screwed up” fraud allegation.
Bob, you and I usually agree on political matters. Not this one. I know that you are angry at Diane for supporting a Republican in one of the statewide races, and trying to get other Democratic activists to do so. I disliked that, too, but not in a way that I would reflexively support someone challenging her.
I won’t pretend to know much about Council business. But I do know a lot about Diane, who is a very good person.
I also know, as I am sure you do, that Diane spent decades as the leader of the Bluegrass Rape Crisis Center. Yet your post takes the time to link to the organization, include its mission statement, and allege that Diane doesn’t care about the cause–without even a cursory mention that she devoted most of her career to the precise organization.
Your post also misrepresents the LFUCG fraud allegations issue. Diane did not make a “fraud claim” as you wrote. It was a claim made by LFUCG employee Patrick Johnston. Diane’s error was not realizing that she gave Johnston’s documents to the State Auditor, at the same time that Council members were in a legal fight with a city Internal Audit Board for access to the same documents. Your post implies that Diane made the allegations herself, when what she did was handle documents very poorly. You also omitted the fact that this concerned the LFUCG insurance contract with the Kentucky League of Cities, where much fraud and waste had already been uncovered. Diane made an ultimately costly mistake, but she did not remotely invent a “fraudulent fraud allegation.”
I also know about dirty tricks being done by Spires and her supporters, of the kind perpetrated by someone you would never support.
You have a right to be angry at Diane. You have a right to support her challenger. But it is not at all like you to use facts selectively–and misrepresent other facts–to paint an unfair picture of an honest person.
Jennifer, I stand by what I wrote 1,000 percent. I do respect you. Four years ago, I worked tirelessly for Diane. And she has been an abject failure as an elected leader.
Read the article. It lays out how she cost the city $100,000 and then claimed to not realize she’d done it.
Please don’t reference scurrilous and unfounded “dirty tricks”. I have not referenced generalized unconfirmed issues on Lawless, and I think both sides can avoid unfounded unsupported references. Or not. If that’s where things are supposed to go, then it should be fair game on either side. I have chosen not to go there.
The article is not using facts selectively. I stand by it. She voted against the funding for those agencies. Refer to the links provided for corroboration. And in my opinion, the fact that Lawless had previously been on staff and a director of the Rape Crisis Center makes her vote against funding it even more of a failure. She of all people should value the benefits of such a program.
And the most disgraceful wrong Lawless has done, the one that truly harmed our community hasn’t even been addressed here. Yet.
I don’t take any pleasure from this. I believe I have a moral obligation to those who have been harmed to detail this. Please don’t assume to ascribe my motives to something that is not the basis for my writing. I am writing because Diane Lawless has harmed her constituents through her failure as a representative.
Ok , Diane and I disagree on almost every political issue but I simply cannot not comment on this obvious hit piece of an article. First I’m offended that Dianne voting with Republicans is suppose to be an insult. Second, accusing Diane of bias against the Bluegrass Rape Crisis center is ludicrous considering it has been her life’s work. Third, Diane is a good person who cares about Lexington and even though I disagree with her politically I have great respect for her dedication to our city. This article is not only factionally questionable but obviously intended to mislead.
Your correction still insinuates that the underlying fraud allegation was made in bad faith: “Fraudulent is an extremely difficult intent to prove, and was not appropriate.” No one even tried to prove the allegation against the Kentucky League of Cities was itself fraudulent. The LFUCG employee who made the allegation kept his job afterward.
If you want to assert that Diane made what should have been an avoidable mistake and thus wasted money, just write that. The air of nefariousness and bad faith is unwarranted. And I doubt anyone knew in advance how much the legal bills would be; no one set out to say, “let’s spend $100,000 on this.”
As to the budget vote, you call Diane a Republican (“her vote with the three other Republican council members”) and neglect to mention that she was 100% supporting Mayor Gray on this. A large list of cuts was Mayor Gray’s proposal, and you need to include him in the attack if you’re going to name everyone who made the vote to support him.
It’s totally legitimate to write, “in my opinion, the fact that Lawless had previously been on staff and a director of the Rape Crisis Center makes her vote against funding it even more of a failure.” Though “on staff and a director” is ingenuous as you know she was the Executive Director nearly three decades. She did not have the opportunity for an up-or-down vote on BRCC. Maybe if she had a line item veto to the broad-reaching bill she would have carved out favorite exceptions from the Mayor’s proposed budget axe. That was not the reality.
Legitimate points look questionable when they are not presented in adequate context.
Bob, I applaud you for taking the unpopular stand of pointing out that a person whom we all knew to be an active and engaged person has been, since elected with the good will of many, a real disappointment as a council person. There is, among the “old school” downtown Lexington corp of intelligentsia (yes, I’m talking about the aging hipsters with pom poms, hula hoops, and a misunderstanding of Jim Gray), an admiration and defense of Diane (as a council person) that is lacking objectivity. Your posting above is a very interesting and thoughtful dissection of Diane’s record and her disappointing and concerning actions as a council person.
We must be careful that a fondness for Diane (as a person), should not cloud judgement in terms of her effectiveness as an elected official. Voting record, attendance, statements in the media, statements in chambers, constituent communication, staff effectiveness, temperament with dissent, working relationships with other council members- are all valid scorecards when deciding whether to keep an incumbent.
My personal opinion is that Diane is no longer the right choice to represent the district. Stephanie Spires may not be the best alternative, but she is a competent, intelligent and legitimate alternative. Meaning: she is not a “crank/joke/Pratt-ian” candidate (sorry, Don…) The district will be fine with Stephanie Spires.
My hope is that Diane will not be elected, but if she is, my other hope is that she (and others) will use this good, solid electoral challenge as a reason to evaluate performance, and not be vindictive or infuriated (at the “gall”).
Bob, I hope you can stay away from the unfounded and personal. It seems that you are trying. There are floodgates that could open there in regards to Diane, and I would hate to see it descend into that.
Jennifer, I respectfully disagree that any further revisions are appropriate. I know Diane is not a Republican even though she voted with them, and did not say she is a Republican. For the record, if anyone is confused, she voted with three other Republicans. She is not a Republican.
I will let readers judge whether Diane Lawless had bad faith or nefarious actions. Obviously her fellow council members (from my read of the article) were shocked and disappointed by her actions. She bungled her handling incredibly badly at a minimum, and cost us $100,000.
I am not attacking Jim Gray. He is not on the ballot, and I can choose not to write about Jim Gray. When he is, I and all voters will have to evaluate him based on his overall record. This is one part of that record.
Finally, I intentionally said she was on staff at Rape Crisis. I question how someone for decades can serve an agency and then proceed to vote against their funding once they are no longer drawing a paycheck from them. That strikes me as even more disappointing. And her conduct cannot be condoned by saying she didn’t have a line item veto. From the article, nearly every single one of these programs was most worthy of support. Every single one of the programs mentioned in my post is worth voting for funding.
Sam, if there isn’t some information that supports a contention, I am not willing to just “put it out there”. I would like to know what changed about Diane Lawless from 2008 that might explain her lack of representation for her constituents, but the “why” isn’t critical. The result is what should be identified and focused on. This is not a fun task, as a previous supporter of Diane Lawless. I have felt since January that I had an obligation to write about this.
Jamie, you’re a fake and a Diane Lawless troll. Go away.
Bob, change it or don’t change it. If you were analyzing statutory language–or if someone you disagreed with wrote this–you would be the first to ask for the removal of the word “other.” Also, I think I know who Jamie is; someone definitely not a troll, unless you have redefined the term.
Sam, are you seriously taking a gratuitous swipe at March Madness Marching Band and Lori Houlihan?? Or maybe that’s just a tangential way of attacking me, the uncool person in the group. And you are either decades out-of-date on what the word hipster means in popular culture, or clueless about who these people are.
Jamie, unless you have some facts to respond with, for purposes of this post, you are a troll. I don’t know you, and don’t mean any personal challenge. That’s not needed. My point is this: Name calling is not allowed, facts are.
Pingback: Who Is Hurt When Diane Lawless Doesn’t Call Her Constituents Back? | Blue Bluegrass