Call it Mayor Dwight Jones' opening statement. In his State of the City address tonight at Thomas Jefferson High School on West Grace Street, Jones unleashed a torrential downpour of mayoral accomplishments in his first three years -- lots and lots of groundbreakings, mostly for things that are still years from actually being built.

We’ll parse through the particulars soon enough. (Ask us about the green, concrete-looking "riverfront terraces" lining the bank of the James).

The real story here is that Jones let the preacher out, particularly toward the end of his speech, and it damn near broke into a call-and-response sermon. This is a relatively rare occurrence. Jones likes to keep the reverend out of his politics, perhaps to his detriment.

If this is a sign of things to come in 2012, well, it can’t all be bad. In pressing for continuing to build on the foundation his administration has supposedly already built --“We’re playing on a great stage,” he told the audience -- the mayor dropped this gem:

“I’ve spoken about the schools that we are building, and we’re so proud of that and we’re grateful to all who have come together to make that happen. … But the buildings speak to bricks and mortar. And we’re using the same bricks and mortar to build a jail. Our challenge is to make sure that our jail is not the structure that ends up getting the most use.”

And this:

“I applaud the progress that’s been made by the school system. Dr. [Yvonne] Brandon and the School Board have done a marvelous job. Let me be the first to say we have come a long way. But I must also point out that the future of our children and the future of our city demands more of you, and demands more of me,” Jones said. “A tier one city is one where we stop celebrating the decreases in our negatives. For example, a tier one city does not celebrate a decrease in our dropout rate and truancy rates. A tier one city does not celebrate getting more education money from the state because we are poor and have kids on free lunch. A tier one city does not celebrate when our schools are … accredited based on archaic minimum standards.”

Oh, it gets even better:

“And I must admit that I myself have participated in these celebrations of mediocrity. But we’ve got to stop. A tier one city has got to recognize that we will accept nothing but excellence in education. We have got to let go of the mediocrity and embrace excellence. … Our children are crying out for help.”

I don’t know what message that sends about his campaign for reelection, but it’s hard not to be a little inspired by his honesty. At the very least, it’s a good start.

Abortion is always an unpleasant topic. It must be horrendous for a woman to be in a position to make such as choice. Still, it is her constitutional right, the law of the land.

So, after years of trying, Virginia’s newly empowered conservative legislators are on the verge of putting themselves, and the power of the state, in between a pregnant woman and her doctor.

They would require that an ultrasound examination be performed before the abortion takes place. The woman would be offered the chance to see the results of the examination and her choice would be recorded and kept in a file. If she lives less than 100 miles from the ultrasound facility, she must wait 24 hours before having the abortion but only two hours if she lives farther than 100 miles.

In six other states that have such a provision, the mother would be “offered” a chance to see the result, although is not required to view the results, according to Guttmacher Institute.

Experts agree that there’s no medical reason for an ultrasound in the first trimester of a pregnancy. Rather, such a requirement is a naked psychological ploy to assault the mother with feelings of guilt and play on her emotions to not go through with the procedure.

Even though abortion is legal within limits, this extra requirement would be both medieval and insulting, not to mention sexist.

In Virginia, however, that’s likely going to change soon. By an 8-7 vote, the Republican-controlled Education and Health Committee has endorsed the ultrasound requirement and have sent it to the full state Senate, which, thanks to the GOP’s refusal to share power, means it’s likely to pass given the 20-20 imbalance of power and Republican Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling holding the deciding vote. Ultrasound bills are being pushed by Sen. Jill Vogel, R-Fauquier County, and Sen. Ralph Smith, R-Roanoke County. Republican Gov. Robert F. McDonnell applauds the law.

What’s so utterly hypocritical of many conservatives is how they pick and chose their fights. Most of the time, they are lecturing us that we need to get government and its regulations away from people’s everyday lives. We need smaller government and should leave as much as possible to personal choice.

But not when it comes to one of the most painful and personal decisions a woman makes. Swollen with their moral authority, they want to be there, dressed in a blue hospital gowns beside the doctors, laying on a profound guilt trip to an experience that is most times already wracked with grief. They are assuming that women (not men) are too stupid to understand what abortion is despite their right to one that is bound by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Similar laws have been enacted in other states. One example, according to The New York Times, is Texas, where an ultrasound law has been a bureaucratic debacle with otherwise busy physicians being required to do many more ultrasound exams.

The proposed Virginia law has already sparked its own retaliatory acts. Fairfax County Democrat Janet Howell, a state senator, is pushing a bill that would require men to have a rectal exam and a heart stress test before receiving prescriptions for erectile dysfunction.

The General Assembly needs to keep its nose out of the doctors’ offices. It needs to respect the intelligence of women to make a choice that is legally theirs to make.

A freelance photographer and regular contributor to RVA Magazine says he was swept up in the police raid on the Occupy Richmond encampment last night and arrested while trying to take pictures from a public area.

“My wrists are swollen and bruised by the cuffs,” Ian Graham says Monday, out of jail released on a summons and working on another assignment.

State and city police ended a 15-day encampment at Kanawha Plaza around 1 a.m., say protestors, who were given an hour to leave. Those who chose to stay were arrested -- at least 9, as confirmed earlier today by Style.

Through his Twitter feed at @IanGraham, he wrote around 4 a.m.: “Arrested for ‘trespassing’ tonight in a crosswalk between 9th and 10th streets, while documenting @RichmondPolice breaking up #rva #ows.” The hashtags stand for Richmond and Occupy Wall Street.

Graham says he had no political agenda, doesn’t speak for the Occupy Richmond protest and went to Kanawha around 1:30 a.m. after photographing a party.

“There were people on both sides of the crosswalk where I was arrested, and none of them were arrested,” Graham writes on RVA Magazine’s website. “But none of them had cameras, either.”

After weeks of debate and consternation over the future of the city’s expressway system, the official vote proceeded without questions or discussion. The Richmond Metropolitan Authority voted 11-0 Tuesday to approve a refinancing of the remaining debt on the Downtown Expressway and Powhite Parkway -- and to pay back the city its $62 million.

The vote came despite the fact that Mike Berry, the authority’s general manager, had received two inquiries from companies seeking to privatize the roadway. It came despite a request from a majority of City Council members to hold off until alternatives could be explored.

For all practical purposes, going forward with a refinancing of the authority’s senior debt and repayment of $62 million in subordinate debt -- the deal in essence rolls both onto the authority’s books, a total of about $188 million -- affords the authority freedom to issue future bonds for capital and maintenance needs.

It also ends, for now, the immediate question of whether to privatize the expressway or continue operating the system through the regional authority that is the RMA.

“There’s also been some conversation about privatization and the Public-Private Transportation Act, and us repaying the subordinate debt does not preclude a firm from making a proposal in the future with regard to the RMA,” Berry told the board Tuesday afternoon. “I think we are in a position to carry out the wishes of the board at this point.” Shortly afterward, the board voted to approve the deal.

Whether or not the board carried out the wishes of the public, however, is another matter. For weeks, Mayor Dwight Jones has pressed for the authority to repay the city’s long-lost $62 million, but in doing so the RMA is pushing back the city’s ownership rights to the expressway. The authority has been operating for years with the goal of paying off the expressway’s debt by 2022, at which point the road would revert to city ownership. Because it brings in $35 million in tolls a year, and net revenue of $10 million, many believe the toll road would fetch hundreds of millions in a privatization deal.

With the bond issue that was approved Tuesday, the city wouldn’t gain ownership until 2041.

Having to wait to gain ownership, however, may not be as important as the potential political fallout. At various points over the years, there have been efforts in the General Assembly to strip away some of the city’s seats on the RMA’s board. Richmond’s mayor appoints six of the 11 board members; Chesterfield County appoints two; Henrico County appoints two; and there’s a seat reserved for a state transportation official.

With more than 60 percent of expressway commuters coming from Chesterfield, the argument goes that the county needs more representation on the board. Previous efforts in the Statehouse have largely failed, however, because the city put up all of the land for the expressway system as well as the money in the early years when tolls weren’t enough to cover bond payments.

Now, with the city getting its $62 million, some fear that a new push in the statehouse to strip seats away from the city will gain traction. If that happens, the city’s reversion right could be in jeopardy.

“The minute the city of Richmond receives that subordinate debt [the $62 million], I will bet my last dollar that the General Assembly will change the composition of the board,” says City Councilman Bruce Tyler, who attended Tuesday’s meeting. “The only argument we have is that it’s all in the city of Richmond. I wasn’t born yesterday.”

In the end, whether Tuesday’s vote negates any future debate over privatization is still an open question. After the vote, City Council’s land use committee approved a resolution asking the RMA not to take action on the refinancing deal it had already approved. The resolution, which now goes before the full City Council, also requests the authority conduct an independent analysis of the refinancing and possible alternatives. The resolution, of course, appears to be moot.

Whether the RMA or the city still explores privatization of the toll roads is also unclear. Abertis, a transportation company based in Barcelona, is working on a proposal to present to the RMA, perhaps as early next week. In an interview Monday afternoon, Jordi Graells, president of Abertis USA, told Style that if the current deal went through it wouldn’t automatically negate their proposal. It might mean, however, that the company’s planned proposal to pay $250 million for a 30-year concession deal -- based on minimal toll increases, adjusted only for inflation -- may simply mean less of a payday for the city.

“We could just still go for the deal,” Graells said, adding the caveat: “The more debt that the RMA accumulates, the less value of the concession.”

As for the lack of substantive debate, at least on Tuesday, James Jenkins, chairman of the RMA board, says the authority has been working on the refinancing package for months. He also mentions that the authority puts its toll road patrons first.

“We had a unanimous Chesterfield Board of Supervisors who passed a resolution asking us to wait on a toll increase, and we didn’t do that, because we found it was in the best interest of the RMA to move forward,” Jenkins says, referring to the last time the authority raised tolls, in 2008, from 50 to 70 cents.

The real question, of course, is whether privatization would unleash the demons that the authority and the mayor predict -- rapidly escalating tolls. Graells says the tolls wouldn’t have to be raised significantly in a private deal, and could be structured to allow increases based only on the rate of inflation. In a letter to the authority’s board Tuesday morning, attorney Thomas Wolf, who is representing Abertis, argues that privatization would lead to greater efficiencies -- at less cost to toll-road users.

“Over the last 15 years, the RMA has authorized two toll increases that imply an average annual toll escalation on the Expressway of 4.73%. That rate increase is greater than the rate increase contemplated by many concessions, assuming normal levels of price inflation,” Wolf writes.

Berry, the RMA’s general manager, says he hasn’t received an official proposal from Abertis, or Washington, D.C.-based Carlyle Infrastructure Partners, which submitted a letter of interest that Berry received “during dessert” at Tuesday’s lunch meeting.

Afterward, however, Berry says it’s “unlikely” that Abertis could finance their deal with minimal toll increases.

It’s also just as likely that the city never really finds out.

Mayor Dwight Jones is finally getting his jail, overcoming the final legislative hurdle by winning City Council’s blessing Thursday night with a 7-2 vote of approval.

Jones’ selection of Tompkins Builders and S.B. Ballard Construction to build a $116.6 million jail in the East End endured plenty of drama in the last two weeks. Ultimately, however, the majority of council, minus dissenting Councilmen Marty Jewell and Bruce Tyler, felt the Jones administration did enough to address issues concerning minority participation, the height of the proposed jail and concerns about the fairness of the procurement process to sign off on the deal.

“This has been a much anticipated vote and I want to thank City Council for acting on our recommendation. We are confident that this is the right outcome,” Jones said in a statement released after the vote. “This is the right decision for our city, the law enforcement officers and the inmates. The citizens of Richmond thank you and the dedicated sworn officers that work at the City Jail thank you.”

Jones was in attendance for much of the meeting, but left before the final vote. At times, council chambers morphed into a rollicking revival. It seemed like the entire sheriff’s office was there. A retired carpenter dressed in black pinstripes, complete with a faux ball and chain, scolded council and the mayor. Donnie Corker, aka Dirtwoman, lectured Jones, “a good preacher,” and Council President Kathy Graziano: “You need to retire. You’re a troublemaker.” Tense times, maybe, but Jones and Graziano couldn’t help but smile as the chamber bounced with laughter.

Questions surrounding minority contracting – Tyler finally got something resembling an answer to his questions about how much work would go to actual minority contractors – were addressed. (It turns out of the $24 million in construction work being handled T.K. Davis Construction, the group’s minority partner, $17 million will go to concrete suppliers who will not likely be minority suppliers, but it still counts.) And the city did discover that two of the four bidders had buildings that were much closer, if not under, the highest elevation of the eastern hill behind the jail.

On Monday, Jones declared that all four proposals the city received to build the jail came in over the bluff, which the city says it about 150 feet above sea level. Before the vote Thursday, Chief Administrative Officer Byron Marshall told the council that the city had done some additional consulting with the teams bidding on the project.

“It is very clear that two of the proposals had heights that exceeded the bluff. The other two have both been consulted and one believes that it did not exceed it because … the bluff height is three feet higher than we say it is,” Marshall said. It turns out the city’s estimates of the elevations of each proposal, including mechanical equipment, may have been off. This matters because the height, or building a shorter jail, costs much more than a taller one.

Does any of it really matter now? Of course. This is only one of the biggest public works projects the city has ever undertaken. Expect a full day of backslapping press conferences on Friday. And now that the deal is official (well, almost) who knows what will fall out of the woodwork? Stay tuned.

It’s do or die for the mayor’s new city jail. On Monday, City Council will decide whether to explore the plans further, or approve Mayor Dwight Jones’ selection of Tompkins Builders and S.B. Ballard Construction Co. to build a jail in the East End for $116.6 million.

But a lot more is at stake than bars and rebar: Jones, who doesn’t have a major project to his credit since taking office in 2009, needs council’s approval on Monday to have an agreement signed by early August, with the hope of beginning construction in December.

The project has been dogged in the last few weeks with persistent questions about the procurement process that led to the selection of Tompkins/Ballard, particularly in the last week. At least two City Councilmembers, Bruce Tyler and Marty Jewell, want to delay a vote to have more time to settle issues relating to minority participation, the jail’s location and issues concerning the fairness of the procurement process. There are serious issues that haven’t been adequately addressed, Tyler and Jewell say, and they have the public record in their favor.

Minority participation in the project – can T.K. Davis Construction, a small Richmond outfit, really handle 21 percent of the concrete casting contract, or is his company simply a pass through? The Richmond Free Press has been hammering the mayor for his selection of Tompkins/Ballard – pointing to Tompkins’ past record for minority participation, which is less than stellar – and there are multiple questions relating to the city’s request for proposals, and whether it followed its own very specific qualifying guidelines.

Much of this could be chalked up to political gamesmanship, but there is a compelling argument to be made that how the city handles the jail contract – its biggest public works project in decades – could impact future projects, and the quality of the proposals that come in. If, say, the construction contracting teams feel the process was unfair, would they really consider investing the time and money to bid on future projects? It cost the teams bidding on the jail project between $500,000 to $700,000, which is an enormous pay to play. The city has an obligation to treat them fairly.

This leads, of course, to the seemingly innocuous height restriction that the city imposed on the bidders in December. Tompkins/Ballard is building a taller jail than was prescribed in the request for proposals, and some people are rightly asking how that happened.

The height issue, first reported by Style Weekly on Thursday, has sparked last-minute jockeying between Councilman Bruce Tyler and Jones. In a nutshell, the city decided to negotiate exclusively with Tompkins/Ballard, even though their proposal went above the bluff of the eastern hill behind the jail site. The city clearly spelled out in its request for proposals that this wasn’t allowed, namely to preserve residents views of the city.

Repeated references in the city’s “Performance Criteria” for the project spell this out: “The new construction shall not achieve a final elevation higher than the highest grade of the hill side on the eastern portion of the property to allow the adjoining residential community views of the City of Richmond,” the criteria states. Not meeting the design requirements, the request for proposals instructs, would result in a proposal being “eliminated.” Tyler, who has reviewed all four proposals the city deemed as meeting qualifications, says that Tompkins/Ballard’s proposal is the only one that went above the bluff. City Council President Kathy Graziano, however, told the Richmond Times-Dispatch that the city informed her that two of the four proposals went above the height restriction.

The point, however, is that the height restriction dramatically changes the cost of the jail – by millions of dollars, according to one person familiar with the procurement process – and being allowed to exceed the elevation of the hill gave Tompkins/Ballard a major advantage that wasn’t afforded to the other bidders.

“What we are talking about is whether or not we can look at our public and say, one, our bidding process is fair,” Tyler says, pointing to the extended bluff. “We cannot do that right now because of this discrepancy.”

In the Richmond Times-Dispatch on Saturday, Tammy Hawley, press secretary to the mayor, says the city in essence eliminated the height requirement in an addendum to the performance criteria Feb. 4, wherein the city addressed questions from the bidders.

"The addendum effectively eliminates the prescriptive requirement and conflicting information prohibiting a building higher than the bluff, and clarified that a midrise design approach will be the qualifier," Hawley told the T-D.

“Question 4: Please clarify the City’s desired number of stories for the facility. In the “Instructions to PPEA Proposers”, page 7, paragraph 1.3.3, “Design Intent”, paragraph F, subparagraph 1 states in part, ‘The size of the site and presence of the existing building that will be included in the long term development of the project require a low to mid-rise (6-8 feet) design approach’. Confirm the City intended to state ‘6 – 8 stories’. In Section B, Part I, on page B1-3, item 1.3, item 1 states ‘The size of the site and presence of the existing buildings development of the project require a low to mid-rise (5-6 stories) design approach.’”

The city answered the question with a single sentence: “Response: Remove reference (6-8 feet), change to read ‘Mid-rise design approach’.”

In a follow-up email Style, Hawley confirms that this is the reference that “effectively eliminates the prescriptive requirement” concerning the height of the building. “Yes, this is the correct reference and becomes the qualifier over the other ambiguous language that was in the RFP,” she says via email. In City Council’s work session addressing the jail contract July 18, there was no mention of the addendum when the city responded to Tyler’s questions about the height restriction. And it’s hard to see how simply stating that the jail design requires a “low to mid-rise design approach,” would override much more specific references to the elevation of the building and the height restriction in the city’s request for proposals.

While this seems like a lot of bickering over relatively minor details, the height issue is a critical one. It affects the overall cost of the jail significantly – allowing the project to be built in one phase, instead of multiple phases, and not having to relocate inmates. This is just one of many, however. The city states a clear preference that the proposers not use existing facilities in its design, yet the Tompkins/Ballard team incorporates the women’s facility in its proposal. One team still wants to know why the mayor suddenly decided that he wanted the new jail to be built on the existing jail site, even after accepting the unsolicited proposal to build the jail on the city’s South Side, off Commerce Road, in early 2010. That jail is in an industrial district that is largely dead, and the cost is nearly identical to the Tompkins/Ballard proposal in the East End.

In an unusual move, Jones sent out an email blast to citizens on Friday, with the header: “No Time for More Delays.” He implores citizens to contact their council person, and urge approval of his selection of Tompkins Builders and S.B. Ballard Construction Co. to build a new city jail, for $116.6 million. Forget for a moment the political impotency of correctional facilities, and consider the message itself. Jones writes: “The process we've undertaken to develop a ‘state of the art’ justice facility has been legal, professional, fair, comprehensive and honest. However, there are those using smoke and mirrors looking for ways to raise questions about the process. It's wrong for anyone to try to bully the City into making the recommendation they want rather than the recommendation that the unbiased process yielded.”

It might be easy to label Jewell and Tyler with having political motivations, but it doesn’t mean they don’t deserve some answers. City Auditor Umesh Dalal has already recommended that City Council engage outside legal advice to address some apparent discrepancies in the procurement process. The mayor will blame City Council if it asks for more time, and the price guarantee the Tompkins team gave to the city expires in mid-September. But the mayor certainly took his time with this. The city’s first RFP for the jail went out in December of 2009; 18 months later, a contractor was selected. City Council was given a month and a half.

Jones, ever the measured, practical mayor who hates to rush anything may get what he wants come Monday, but it may do little to quiet his critics. To date only city staff, the auditor and City Council members have been granted access to review the proposals. But once the contract is awarded, all the bids will be open for public inspection.

City Council’s sexual harassment saga took a dramatic turn yesterday when the city submitted its first official response to claims made by Jennifer Walle, the former aide to City Councilman Bruce Tyler, to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

In a “position statement” submitted to the commission -- Walle filed a complaint against the city, City Council President Kathy Graziano and her aide David Hathcock, whom Walle alleges sexually harassed her in April 2010 -- lawyers hired by the city write that the charges are “wholly untrue and with no factual support.”

In a 22-page position statement defending the city, the lawyers dismiss claims that Walle was forced to work in a “sexually hostile work environment” and suffered retaliation for making the allegations. After interviews with city officials, council members and staff -- Walle declined to participate -- the outside attorneys conclude that the city took appropriate action. Moreover, their defense hinges on the fact that Walle allegedly refused to file a formal complaint against Hathcock and therefore the city couldn’t formally launch an internal investigation into the claims.

The city’s outside counsel hired to look into the matter -- Wilcox & Savage lawyers Samuel J. Webster and Bryan C.R. Skeen -- sum up Walle’s claim against Hathcock: “Ms. Walle never made a formal written complaint to the City detailing her allegations against Hathcock, and she told varying and inconsistent versions of her allegations to various City employees during her employment.”

First, a recap: Walle alleges that David Hathcock, aide to City Council President Kathy Graziano, inappropriately touched her and made suggestive remarks to her in April 2010. In an interview with Style Weekly in early February, Walle says that Hathcock pulled her onto his lap and expressed his feelings for her, and attempted to kiss her.

Walle also says that she approached Graziano about the incident and says she was told to either “look for a new job, or I could quit.” And then shortly after the approaching Graziano about Hathcock, her boss, Tyler, enters the picture. The city’s lawyers say that Walle also made claims that Tyler had made inappropriate comments about her dress and appearance -- things like Walle “looked good in heels.” The city’s hired guns say that Walle also asked to be reassigned, that she didn’t feel comfortable working with Tyler. Hayden Fisher, Walle’s attorney, says this isn’t true. (Click here for Fisher's interview with Style Editor Jason Roop on WRVA this morning.)Walle says that Graziano pushed her to file a complaint with the Human Resources Department about Tyler’s comments. The city lawyers say Graziano didn’t do any such thing.

The city’s response to the whole affair is sweeping. There were many meetings, back-and-forth charges about who said what and when. But it offers a clear picture of where the saga is heading. It’s Walle’s word against a multitude of city officials who suggest that Walle changed her story and refused to offer specific details, or file official complaints, making it impossible to respond to the allegations.

The city’s defense relies heavily on the fact that Walle declined to submit a formal, written complaint to human resources. Without it, officials say that they couldn’t conduct an investigation into the claims.

The first meeting took place on July 30, 2010, when Walle met with Graziano at the urging of Jan Girardi, an aide to City Councilman Charles Samuels. Girardi, a friend of Walle’s, also attended the meeting. In their interviews with lawyers, Girardi and Graziano both say that Walle explained that “Mr. Hathcock touched her inappropriately” but didn’t provide any specific details as to what happened. Graziano repeatedly asked for details, according to the attorneys, but Walle refused. The lawyers also write that “Walle did not tell Ms. Graziano or Mrs. Girardi about her May 6 email to Mr. Hathcock or his response.”

Walle’s May 6 email to Hathcock is also critical. In it, she recounts the incident to Hathcock: “While you were in my office, you physically touched me several times in a way that made me very uncomfortable.” She asks Hathcock not to do it again. She sent the email on May 6 at 5:19 p.m. Three minutes later, Hathcock responds: “I had the same thought. You are right.”

Fisher says the city’s letter to the EEOC incorrectly reports that Walle never mentioned the email in meetings with Graziano and other city officials, including former Human Resources Director Tyrone Jackson. “That’s a complete lie,” Fisher says. Walle has maintained that she attempted to show Graziano the email in that July 30, 2010, meeting, and Graziano told her she didn’t want to see it.

This discrepancy is important because the city’s defense revolves around contention that Walle repeatedly declined to offer specific details about what happened. In other words, that she was unwilling to expound, or file a written complaint with the Human resources Department. The lawyers for the city dismiss the contents of the email:

“Although Mr. Hathcock admits that he sent this email, he maintains that his response was simply an acknowledgement that he did something to offend Ms. Walle and an effort to assuage her concerns. Mr. Hathcock insists that Ms. Walle’s version of the events of April 21 is incorrect. He denies ever touching her inappropriately or saying anything inappropriate to her.”

And then Tyler enters the picture. Daisy Weaver, former City Council chief of staff, told the investigators that Walle came into her office after the meeting with Graziano and Girardi, also on July 30. Walle told her about the Hathcock incident, and then also “reported that she had been subjected to a pattern of suggestive and inappropriate comments by her Councilman, Bruce Tyler.” She didn’t provide details, according to the city’s letter to the commission.

Walle has maintained that Tyler’s comments were innocent in nature, but the city’s investigation suggests something worse. There was another meeting Aug. 9, 2010, involving Walle, Graziano, Weaver, an assistant city attorney and Jackson, the former human resources director, who resigned in early March, taking a job in Washington. In that meeting, the city lawyers report, Walle instead focused on the alleged inappropriate comments made by Tyler, and didn’t make any mention of being inappropriately touched by Hathcock. “Ms. Walle’s allegations against Mr. Hathcock were limited to a single instance of inappropriate comments,” the EEOC letter states.

This account conflicts with Walle’s public statements earlier this year, and Fisher says the city is again fabricating. Walle never wanted to pursue complaints against Tyler, he says, and never asked to be reassigned as council aide.

“Ms. Walle then told Dr. Jackson that she told Ms. Graziano about her concerns about Mr. Hathcock, but Ms. Graziano said the matter had been addressed and, instead, tried to force her to complain about Mr. Tyler. She told Dr. Jackson that she wanted to pursue her complaints only against Mr. Hathcock.”

Jackson then reminded Walle that she still needed to file a written complaint, and Walle said she would consider doing so, and said she would notify Jackson by the following Monday. Jackson says Walle never followed up, and that “Ms. Walle has never filed a written complaint with Human Resources.”

Walle did, however, go to police, and Hathcock was charged with misdemeanor sexual battery and assault. In May, Hathcock agreed to undergo 100 hours of community service and workplace sensitivity training in exchange for the charges being dropped. A separate civil lawsuit filed by Walle against Hathcock and Graziano is ongoing. Fisher says a trial will likely take place in early 2012.

There is much to dissect in city’s response. Critical, however, is the claim that Walle never filed a written complaint to HR. Fisher says that by then she felt filing such a complaint was pointless.

“You shouldn’t have to file a written complaint,” he says, adding that the city’s sexual harassment policy is “flawed.” The city’s policy involves three steps, the first of which is to “whenever possible, individuals who experience unlawful harassment should make it clear to the offending person that such behavior is unacceptable.”

Being instructed to approach your harasser, Fisher says, is ill-advised. “You never confront the accuser,” he says. “It’s not best practices.”

How the saga plays out from here, however, is an open question.

At the request of four City Council members, City Auditor Umesh Dalal is delving into Mayor Dwight Jones selection of Tompkins Builders and S.B. Ballard Construction to build a $116 million jail in the East End.

In a letter to Dalal June 28, Council members Marty Jewell, Bruce Tyler, Doug Conner and Reva Trammell are requesting the city auditor’s “professional assistance in determining whether the procurement processes and procedures regarding the Richmond City Jail procurement was conducted properly in accordance with state law” and the city’s procedures.

In the letter, written by Jewell and signed by Tyler, Conner and Trammell, the council members request a “review and/or audit, if you deem it necessary in order to advise council prior to a vote on this contract.”

Dalal’s involvement is heightening tensions as City Council weighs Mayor Dwight Jones’ proposed agreement with Tompkins/Ballard. Some have questioned whether the process was fair, and whether the East End, where the current jail now sits, is the best location for the new jail. The mayor has asked for City Council’s blessing by the end of July, in order to have an official agreement in place by Aug. 5.

Following a two-hour work session Thursday night, wherein in Council members quizzed city officials about the jail procurement process, the Dalal letter sparked a heated exchange between Council President Kathy Graziano and Jewell.

“We could have avoided sitting here for two hours with questions being asked one way, another way, up the way and down the way,” Graziano, visibly unnerved, told Jewell as the meeting was breaking up.

Jewell shot back: “I challenge anybody in this room to tell the public that we, this council, don’t want to be confused by the facts,” Jewell said, adding that Dalal would provide much-needed expertise. “Does anybody here find something wrong with that? Does that sound like it’s something crazy?”

Dalal told Council members that his office could complete an initial review of the jail contract procurement process by July 13, council’s next work session. Afterward, however, he said it was certainly unusual to be asked to review a contract before it’s been awarded. “It doesn’t happen all the time,” he said, adding that in fact it was the first time he’d been asked to review a proposed contract.