THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, February 8, 1996 TAG: 9602070147
SECTION: SUFFOLK SUN PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
SOURCE: John Pruitt
LENGTH: Medium: 74 lines
W.B. ``Bill'' Bishop doesn't have time to be vindictive, he says. But since the city fired him from his job as airport manager in March 1994 - after about 7 1/2 years on the job - he has plenty of time and great interest in city government, so he's challenging incumbent Marion ``Bea'' Rogers for the Sleepy Hole Borough seat on the City Council.
At the same time, the 4th Circuit of the U.S. Appeals Court holds documents in which Bishop claims to have been illegally fired by the city he would represent and in which he asks reinstatement and $100 million in punitive damages.
Any award is negotiable, he says; the point is to clear his good name. It's an interesting predicament.
Assuming he won a council seat, he could become a direct supervisor of the city attorney, the man whose job it is to make the city's case for Mr. Bishop's dismissal, and he would have significant power in determining how the airport was run.
Still, the fact that ``the city decided to take the job away from me'' has nothing to do with his political ambitions, he says. He just wants to be a council member who listens to constituents, helps control a budget that is ``just going out of sight'' and routinely explains to citizens what is happening in city government and how it will affect them.
All seems laudable. Chances are, however, that incumbent Rogers would argue that she already fulfills those roles, that the difficulty arises when some constituents don't hear what they want her to say.
Among Bishop's backers are some people who pushed Ms. Rogers' candidacy - including civic activist Talmadge C. Jones. But Bishop's backers do not include all members of a committee that, in mid-1993, wrote Ms. Rogers a letter that essentially pictured her as a traitor.
In clearer thinking since hot debate over a proposal called tax increment financing - of which Ms. Rogers approved - some members have swung back to her side.
Ms. Rogers says she made it clear, in her initial run, that she'd base decisions on thorough study and that sometimes her votes might not ally with her backers' wishes.
If you listen to her questions at council meetings - and particularly if you get a glimpse of notes and questions that mark her every agenda packet - you soon enough realize that she is living up to her promise to consider issues thoroughly before casting any vote.
As to holding opinions in line with those of most Sleepy Hole voters, that's another matter. Indeed, the question is whether a council member should simply reflect the majority opinion or - using feedback from constituents, as well as often-privileged information - make decisions based on measured evaluation of what's best for the overall city. At least by application, that includes disagreeing constituents.
Do voters even want council members in the do-as-we-say mold, particularly when ``we'' are a small but vocal clutch of voters? It's a particularly good question in Sleepy Hole.
The most positive thing about Bill Bishop's candidacy is that the voters now have a choice. People in the fastest-growing borough of Suffolk are the best arbiters of Ms. Rogers' effectiveness. They're perfectly capable of measuring her performance against the promises of Bishop and/or any other candidate.
With a filing deadline of March 5, there's still plenty of time for the field of candidates to grow. This borough merits special attention, for the focus of not only Suffolk but Hampton Roads is increasingly on its north Suffolk boundaries.
This election is particularly important as Suffolk residents determine the type of city they want tomorrow.
Comment? Write to the editor or call 934-7553. by CNB