FREE WHITEWATER

Monthly Archives: December 2007

City, Police

The Force We Need

by  • 

I have been — for sound, inescapable reasons — a critic of the state in which Jim Coan has left our lovely, but troubled, city. He, and those who have supported him, have made life worse for others. I have watched, day after day, as he has taken this city and its police force down the wrong path.

My family have a great familiarity with police work, one having committed himself to a lifetime of intelligent, dedicated leadership in that field. We well-understand this vocation, and it is the gap in leadership between what should be, and what is, that both astonishes and infuriates. Only someone confused, or ignorant could have confidence in the leadership that burdens and embarrasses our current force, and the city it is sworn to serve.

There are many in Whitewater who would like the force to be more than it is, and I know how disappointed they are that it lacks the leadership it needs.

A few remarks —

Firearms. I have been around firearms my entire life. A sound familiarity with them assures that they will be used properly and efficiently in those rare occasions when necessary. A man should be so comfortable with a gun that he can use it dispassionately under deadly circumstances, and never so excited by it that he might consider it a toy or plaything.

Sometimes — in places without good leadership — a young or foolish officer will make the mistake of showing off with a gun, or pointing it inappropriately. No serious man can respect a person like this; it betrays an immaturity that is the subject of scorn from serious men. Any case like this, whenever it happens, should be subject to (1) real and effective coaching, (2) emotional evaluation, and (3) progressive discipline.

Warriors. Like all libertarians, I advocate “free markets, individual liberty, and peace.” Americans have always preferred peace, so that we might trade and travel freely with friendly nations around the globe.

Nonetheless, there are times when our country has faced foreign enemies, and for our own protection, we have exercised a legal and moral right to defend ourselves. Countless Americans — in your family and mine — have justly and courageously defended our country against Nazi, Imperial Japanese, and Soviet-sponsored tyranny, as we now face the Taliban and Al Qaeda. These enemies were, and are, reprehensible, and we have always had a legitimate right to wage war until their surrender or destruction.

We cannot be at war with our fellow citizens and residents. The war power is reserved for our reprehensible enemies abroad, not those who live among us. There is a powerful distinction even between suspected criminals and foreign enemies. Warriors include — for example — those who must, by sad necessity, travel abroad to defend a new, better Afghanistan against those who killed our fellow citizens, and who would do so again if given the chance. They, in combat in faraway Afghanistan, away from their families, facing a detestable enemy, are real warriors.

When Jim Coan tells us he sees the Whitewater Police Force as warriors, and goes on about it as he once did in his newsletter, he’s telling us nonsense, leading officers away from true community policing, and using a false metaphor to puff himself up. When one starts to think that way, one begins to see one’s fellow residents as an enemy. The authority of warriors is not conferred on anyone who protects the streets of Whitewater. General Bradley was a warrior, defending civilization against the Nazis; Chief Coan is not a warrior when he sits alone at Randy’s eating lunch, or any other time of the day, evening, etc. Coan might imagine himself a warrior, but it doesn’t matter — at all — what he thinks about over his plate.

Speaking to Others. Sometimes, a young or poor officer will approach someone at a traffic stop, or elsewhere, and think that he’ll make himself look more powerful if he begins with a leading or hostile question. It doesn’t work: timid people resent the encounter afterwards, and confident and clever people just think the officer’s not strong or confident enough to speak normally. Don’t allow others to drag down one’s reputation through hackneyed, third-rate phrases. People have described to me all the most transparent, foolish phrases that mediocre officers have used in conversations. Don’t let people carry on like this, and don’t think that a leader’s empty insistence that it never happens convinces anyone. It doesn’t.

Wade Into Our Community. This can be a beautiful and well-run place once again. Officers should embrace the community that they serve and be a part of it; community policing is the very opposite of a puffed-up idea of officers as warriors. Here is our invitation: Live here with us, worship here with us, send your children to our schools, and shop in our markets. We will be your neighbors and friends. Policing will be better, officers will feel better about their jobs, and our community will be safer.

If you live elsewhere, think about living with us here in Whitewater.

A serious man or woman doesn’t need a lot of confidence-building talk to feel good. He doesn’t rely on silly commendations in a newsletter to be proud of himself or his department. He commits himself to self-improvement, not happy talk. When the day ends, he feels proud for his efforts, needing no sugary acknowledgment.

That’s not how weak leaders behave: they fill men up with empty praise, thinking it will make them more popular than through real coaching and accountability. One should not let a leader treat subordinates as through they are overgrown boys. It’s embarrassing, and corrosive of true excellence.

A Good Police Commission. A strong and capable force welcomes good and open oversight. That’s how you can be proud of your work: through legitimate, dedicated, believable oversight. Our Police Commission is so far removed from a good, solid body that it falls near the bottom of any commission or board in the city. People spend far more time working to make other boards and committees genuine than on the PFC. I ran a series on our PFC recently, and to say that it operates as a ‘big nothing’ would be too generous. It’s run by volunteers, and if a person volunteers, he or she should work to deliver something respectable.

Officers and citizens could ask for a real, hard-working PFC to provide true oversight of which all can be proud. There should be a real citizen complaints process, not the empty one we have, that falls far short of reasonable suggestions from the U.S. Department of Justice. I invite anyone who is a member of the PFC to write to me, and defend his or her work. I can be reached at adams@freewhitewater.com. (They know very well what I have written on this matter of public policy. I have posts entitled Introduction, Importance and Authority, Reasonable Standards, Minutes, Performance Generally, Citizen Complaints, and Hirings without Oversight?) A weak PFC and a weak complaints process erodes community confidence.

Residents and Citizens. Finally, I heard once how Coan said something to the effect that those who were upset about the Star Packaging raid were likely outsiders, were just agitating people within the Hispanic community in Whitewater, or were perhaps from the ACLU, etc. (He forgot to mention that criticism of his leadership might be inspired by Martians, gremlins, or talking squirrels. Give him long enough, though…)

Nothing is funnier. It must be clear that I am neither an outsider, nor Spanish-speaking, nor a member of the ACLU, etc. (I regret, if anything, that I understand so little Spanish.)

Coan is one of the last people on earth who should ever talk about loyalty and commitment to our community. If he expects people to believe what he says about community concerns, it must only be because he considers others ignorant, gullible, or stupid.

If we have good leadership, we can have a more effective force, and one that will offer better experiences for the community and its sworn officers.

Inbox Reader Mail

Inbox: Reader Mail (From a Downtown Business Owner)

by  • 

Yesterday, I received two email messages from a downtown merchant, first with concerns about snow removal, and a second message with broader concerns about downtown businesses. The messages were sent, also, to officials at the city. I will post key excerpts from these messages, without identifying the author specifically.

(Although copies were sent to city officials, I follow the custom of other bloggers of not identifying an email’s author unless the author directly requests that I include his or her name. I receive a steady volume of email, from Whitewater residents, business owners, city workers, and politicians. I have always appreciated their messages and respected privacy. Sometimes I respond via email only privately, and sometimes — as with this message — I will post excerpts to convey the principal message and my reply on FREE WHITEWATER.)

The excerpts are in black, and my remarks in blue, thereafter.

From the email message about a car illegally parked, and taking up space that a business owner needed for customer parking:

This is exactly the type of issue that downtown
businesses have with the city and that we have
complained about for the past 6 years.
I was led to believe – apparently foolishly – that our
monetary donations to this “Whitewater Community
Foundation” were going to correct these downtown
business issues, but this must be yet another attempt
by the City of Whitewater to chase business away.

Where is this money going that we have pledged for
three years in a row?

The sidewalk in front of the former Furnace on Center
Street has not been shoveled in over three weeks –
this I know because I walk over the mess to get to the
bank and post office. We had these issues last year
and they were to be corrected – or so I thought.

Is Downtown Whitewater Inc. attempting to recruit
businesses to a downtown that is unsafe to walk in?
Has anyone from that office attempted to correct this
situation? Are they also going to attempt to pass the
buck on these ongoing problems?

From the later email about being a business owner in our downtown:

Isn’t there some sort of Downtown Whitewater Inc. that
is supposed to be supporting downtown business? We
have never ever seen this new “director” that we make
yearly contributions in order to pay her salary.

We have been at our current location for 6 years and
have been in a constant battle with various city
officials – simply to get them to do the jobs they are
being payed for.

I would like to see some time devoted in your column
to let the public realize that city does not, in fact,
support business the way they claim. Instead, they
seemingly make every attempt to chase businesses away.

Anyway, its time we stop keeping to ourselves about
the problems with the city the way we had hoped. I
think the people of Whitewater deserve to know that
the city is not giving the support to bring in outside
businesses. The City of Whitewater apparently would
rather its residents drive to Fort or Janesville to
spend their money.

I believe we are the fastest growing business in the
downtown area and the city is trying to chase us away
– either with a purpose or because of their
incompetence – and those officials that are offended
by that remark are probably the ones NOT doing their
jobs the way they would like the residents to believe.

Here is my reply:

Thanks very much for taking the time to visit my site, and to email me, albeit under disagreeable circumstances. It’s hard to run a business anywhere, much less in a small town with a fragile economy. After you wrote, I headed over to the downtown, to look at some of the concerns that you mentioned about snow and parking.

I saw your point — customers will shun areas that are blocked by cars, or covered with snow, in favor of large parking lots in Janesville, etc. Cars are increasingly well-made and well-appointed, and people often think nothing of driving elsewhere, while listening to music, or playing a DVD for their children in the back-seat. Our loss is Janesville’s gain.

The fault is not with residents, but with the ordinary inconveniences with which we burden each other, only to the advantage of merchants elsewhere. We will not have enterprises unless we truly encourage free enterprise, unburdened of ineffective, ill-directed enforcement and regulations. Our neighboring cities have stronger economies and significantly less poverty than we do.

I find Downtown Whitewater, Inc. (DW) odd. The effort makes sense — merchants band together to make downtown better for business. There are merchant’s associations all over Wisconsin — there’s nothing odd about that. Two things stand out: (1) a choice of director who seems strident and inflexible, and (2) a few within (DW) who interpose any of their own contrived notions against ideas to overcome vacancies.

It does no good for a director to say that she is on the phone all day soliciting businesses to relocate here while simultaneously objecting to ideas that would reduce vacancies. Strident — often misapplied — notions of what a downtown must be should give way to our practical need for what our downtown may be. Nor is it sensible to craft any number of restrictive views and insist that they must trump our own ordinances. People may advocate as they wish — and say what they want — but I will not pretend that these private views either represent our law or good sense.

I also find the director’s advocacy on behalf of DW petulant. Others may be charmed, I suppose, but I am not swayed so easily.

I know that your business has a large number of steady, repeat customers who value your service, and I wish you the best in your efforts to care for them from within our community.

Best regards, Adams

Inbox Reader Mail

Inbox: Reader Mail (No, John Kennedy — Thank You!)

by  • 

Here is a message I received from a reader with the excellent pen name, “John Kennedy.”

Thank you for offering a resource for alternative opinions in our City. I, too, love Whitewater, but agree there are many improvements can be made, and many of them begin with our local government. I wonder why there is growth all around our City, but there is nothing happening here. Is it the “reputation” Whitewater is rumored to have? Thank you for the time you devote to the website. With the current political climate, I expect your readership will continue to grow.

My reply:

No, thank you for visiting FREE WHITEWATER, and for your kind words. We can build a new and better reputation, but only through genuine reform. When we are open and fair, we will be happy and prosperous. We were this way once, and we will be this way again.

I like your pen name! John Kennedy was a good, visionary man. (He was well-liked, for sound reasons, by many, including Goldwater and Reagan, both of whom thought highly of him.)

Best regards, Adams

School District

Choice in Education

by  • 

What does it mean when someone says that education should be ‘run like a business?’ It might mean one of two things, one easily caricatured and mistaken, but one easily misunderstood yet profound.

In the first case, to run a school district like a business is merely to run it with some sense of accounting, with a ledger. There’s nothing wrong with accountability, but to be like a business is not what advocates of accountability usually mean, and the view is often mischaracterized and distorted. Defenders of existing practices will say that education and business are different, that small children deserve more than being part of a profit-and-loss atmosphere, etc.

After all, one could rightly contend that there have always been businesses, but many of those have been in shabby economies or unjust places, where there was no understanding of free markets, and where successful businessmen were just cronies of the king, aristocracy, or autocrat. That’s not, of course, well-earned success: it’s state-backed favoritism.

Teachers and principals — ‘educators’ — will say that it requires a great deal of specialized training, certification, and that a business-like approach is recklessly ignorant of the subtleties of learning.

When one argues against this first-level business approach, one is often right.

That’s not, however, what a so-called business-approach means, and often advocates of a different approach are unfairly pigeon-holed into this first category.

It’s really a matter of choice, of free selection between alternatives, that reformers want. It’s not the mere business, it’s the arrangements of greater free selection that underlie markets that reformers advocate. There are any number of similar, but not identical, terms for aspects and consequences of choice: markets, spontaneous order, or emergent phenomena. The idea, though, is simple: more opportunities for parental and student choice.

I’ll give two examples. I have mentioned the first before: why would we ever be so foolish as teach our children using only one computer operating system (Microsoft’s Windows), when all the prosperous world moves toward other, better options? Why can we not find and use a vendor who would offer — at a good price — what capable students across America use? There’s irony in all this. Reformers are ridiculed as being too literal in a business approach, but the technological choices that our district has made are, themselves, bad business choices that shortchange learning. (For my earlier posts on the topic, see “The IT Dead End in Our Schools,” and “The Technology Plan for the Whitewater Schools.” For my general positions, see “On Public Education.”)

Here’s a second example. We should offer — far more than we do — teacher selection from among known choices. (Use of eccentric, unknown teachers as months-long substitutes disadvantages students with choosing from those who have no reputation within the district and often cannot find permanent jobs.) Teacher selection — especially in challenging academic courses — is a good way to give talented students the teachers they deserve to learn well and be prepared for advanced college placement. When a district uses substitutes in serious academic subjects, it in effect tells its most talented students that their preparation is secondary to cost-savings.

That’s not a commitment to academic excellence and achievement — it’s more likely the idea of an administrator without serious study in a substantive field. “Education” or “educational administration” is not a substantive field, however occasionally useful it might be; mathematics, American history, English literature, physics, biology, and the study of art and music: those are examples of substantive fields.

If we needed more money for better teachers, the first place to start would have been to reduce significantly the salary for our District Administrator. Many of our talented high school students evidence greater ability, insight, and value to our community. It’s foolish to spend money on someone who shows so little talent, so little to recommend, when our own talented, insightful students are shortchanged. They have promising careers and offer better value to Wisconsin than a mediocre, unimpressive administrator.

That’s why, when reformers advocate changes, they advocate on the basis of more choice, because we are convinced free choice produces better, more useful, and enjoyable results.

City, Police

Clear Information on the Lawsuit Against Larry Meyer

by  • 

Here’s an update on the lawsuit against former Whitewater Police investigator Larry Meyer. I will offer a chronology, information on the latest legal developments, and an assessment of the coverage from Bliss Communications, publishers of the Janesville Gazette and The Week. This will be a long post, with the advantage being that it will serve as a single spot for coverage of the case, and my assessment of the problems in our community lawsuit reveals.

Principal Chronology:

May 25, 2005, Whitewater resident Steve Cvicker filed a lawsuit in federal court against Whitewater investigator Larry Meyer, among others, alleging constitutional and civil rights violations. The case was assigned to federal Magistrate Judge William Callahan. Defendants subsequently answered, later amending their answer, to Cvicker’s complaint.

June 29, 2006, Defendant, Larry Meyer filed a motion for Summary Judgment (that is, there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law).

March 20, 2007, Judge Callahan denied Defendant, Larry Meyer’s motion for summary judgment regarding alleged constitutional violations of the Fourth Amendment. Cvicker’s lawsuit on those weighty grounds would continue; only his statutory claims were set aside.

May 14, 2007, Plaintiff, Cvicker submitted reports from his expert witnesses. Those expert reports included a well-experienced expert’s assessment of (1) the evasive, incomplete answers that Meyer gave under sworn deposition regarding his ‘investigation’ of Cvicker, and (2) Meyer’s unprofessional conduct and conduct in significant excess of his search warrant, involving seizure of personal items that led to the basis of Cvicker’s constitutional Fourth Amendment claim against Cvicker.

November 15, 2007, Defendant, Meyer submitted a motion to enforce a supposed settlement agreement between the parties and to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice.

December 6, 2007, Plaintiff, Cvicker requested an extension of time to file a reply to the motion to dismiss.

December 7, 2007, Defendant, Meyer filed a brief opposing an extension of time for Cvicker to file a reply.

December 7, 2007, Judge Callahan granted an extension of time for Plaintiff, Cvicker to file a reply.

December 20, 2007, Plaintiff, Cvicker filed his brief in opposition to Meyer’s motion to dismiss.

Recent Legal Developments, Assessed:

A. Meyer’s Motion to Enforce a Supposed Settlement Agreement.

Readers recall that, before Meyer’s motion to enforce a supposed settlement agreement, I speculated in “Questions on the Settlement in the Larry Meyer Case,” that Meyer and his attorney (Ryan Braithwaite) might be seeking confidentiality as part of a settlement agreement. Here’s what I wrote:

Defendant may be insisting that the plaintiff agree not to discuss any aspect of the lawsuit as a condition of settlement. If [that] is true, then it involves worry over embarrassment to someone bigger than Meyer.

I was right. Braithwaite’s November 15, 2007 motion to enforce contains these almost cryptic words about a supposed release that Meyer wants to enforce: “The release will contain a confidentiality provision.”

Readers know that I am opposed — completely — to confidentiality in municipal litigation involving claims against public officials, during public action, at public expense, involving public matters. I wrote a post entitled, “Against Confidentiality in Municipality in Municipal Litigation,” stating seven arguments against confidentiality in this litigation.

I invite Chief Jim Coan to defend the principle of confidentiality in this matter. If he is unwilling or unable to offer a defense, he may designate anyone he thinks more capable. I will print his defense in full, and reply thereafter. I may be reached at adams@freewhitewater.com.

It’s not that Coan can’t talk, or write, at length. He does both, as I pointed out in my post entitled, “Cat Has Your Tongue?” We are regaled with any number of vain and wasteful travelogues of his adventures in cities nothing like ours. A man who receives a pricey uniform allowance to look good should be able to defend a policy matter on principle.

B. The Affidavit of the Attorney Opposing Meyer’s Motion.

You may have read that Attorney Braithwaite alleges in his affidavit there was a supposed settlement. There are opposing affidavits, though, including one from an opposing attorney in the case, who have also offered sworn statements under oath. I will offer relevant excerpts from the opposing affidavit. You’ll quickly see that Braithwaite’s account, and press accounts that follow the defense line, are either (1) disputed under oath, or (2) omit important information.

From Attorney George Mistrioty, in a signed, sworn affidavit from December 20, 2007, Paragraph 4:

Any discussions or offers regarding resolution of the criminal case and the pending post-conviction motions were conducted between Attorney Resar and and the [Walworth County] District Attorney’s Office. I was not involved in those discussions, but was aware that Attorney Resar believed that agreement would be reached. Based on the belief that settlement would be reached, I adjourned a scheduled deposition of D.A. Koss.

From Paragraph 5:

Walworth County District Attorney Phillip Koss is a long-term acquaintance of mine. District Attorney Koss did contact me as a courtesy after September 20, 2007 and informed me that he had reconsidered a settlement proposal that he had discussed with Attorney Resar, and would not reduce or otherwise change Mr. Cvicker’s criminal convictions.

Emphasis added in blue font.

From Paragraph 9:

I have not acknowledged or told defense counsel that I believed that he is correct and that he is entitled to enforce either of the two claimed settlement agreements he has identified in his declaration to the Court.

This affidavit, and the filed brief that the affidavit accompanies, contends that
(1) there were ‘global’ settlement discussions between the D.A.’s office and Cvicker’s criminal lawyer,
(2) that ‘settlement’ was first announced to Court and the press before D.A. Koss was to be deposed in the matter,
(3) that D.A. Koss must have considered a global settlement, as he ‘reconsidered‘ it later, and
(4) it’s laughable to contend that any discussions that took place voluntarily between D.A. Koss and Attorney Resar were ‘coerced.’

The idea of coercion is a bad joke: it’s what you tell gullible people who have not read (or will not report) on this case.

What’s so important about a deposition of D.A. Koss, by the way? I don’t know, but someone might ask a question about how well-experienced A.D.A Dennis Krueger filed a sworn affidavit in which he affirmed that Larry Meyer disregarded prosecutorial direction, in which Krueger affirmed that Meyer said that he, Meyer, destroyed evidence seized.

Perhaps someone at that deposition might also ask D.A. Koss about the circumstances under which Krueger left the Walworth County District Attorney’s office shortly thereafter. (Krueger is now with the Wisconsin Attorney General’s Office — Krueger ‘fell up,’ so to speak.) They might even ask about statements that D.A. Koss made at Police Day May 2007 in which he offered personal regard for Meyer. (Ask for the video from Cable Channel 13, if they have kept it. You’ll see what I mean.)

When they’re done asking those questions, they should ask Coan and Lisa Otterbacher about Coan and Otterbacher’s leadership and management of someone like Meyer. Our community deserves better than this.

Recent News Coverage, Assessed:

I will review the latest news story on the case, from Mike Heine of the Janesville Gazette and The Week (both Bliss Communications publications). I am not sure what to make of Heine: he has broken some news in this case, but as I will show, his latest story is startlingly weak and incomplete. So much so, that I am not sure what to make of it.

On December 22, 2007, the Janesville Gazette ran a story under Heine’s byline entitled, “Cvicker Decides Not to Settle Suit.” I don’t know if Heine writes his own headlines — at many papers that’s an editor’s job — but this headline is one-sided, as you can see if you have read (1) all the briefs in the case, and (2) all the affidavits in the case.

Did Heine read all the documents in this case? I am not sure. In past stories, he has referred to court filings, but I cannot tell how much work he did for this story. He uses a dateline of ‘Milwaukee,’ but that does not tell me if went to the courthouse, and reviewed filings. If he didn’t, then he hasn’t worked hard enough. Solid reporters probe deeply. If Heine did, then I’m shocked by some glaring omissions.

Let me show you how carefully he quotes D.A. Koss:

Walworth County District Attorney Phil Koss said he never agreed to a reduction of criminal charges in exchange for a settlement in Cvicker’s civil case. “If I reduced this, everyone who is unhappy with their criminal conviction is going to sue the investigating officer and then go for a reduction by going to the federal court,” Koss said. “It’s bad precedent to reward someone for suing an officer.”

Koss said it was Cvicker and his attorneys who tried to tie the reduction of criminal charges to the civil case.

“I’ve never contacted them saying, ‘Settle this, and we’ll reduce in exchange for a release,’” Koss said….

Koss agreed that kind of action would be improper.

“We didn’t do that,” he said. “We were contacted by them. They made an offer to make sure everybody was held harmless if there was a civil settlement.

“Never in all my years have I seen some sort of criminal settlement tied to a civil settlement (like this),” Koss said.

Heine omits the one question to ask, based on the sworn affidavit of Attorney Mistrioty and the latest brief in Cvicker’s lawsuit against Meyer:

Did D.A. Koss ever hold discussions with criminal Attorney Resar about a global settlement? A sworn affidavit contends that Koss did hold those discussions.

If discussions are such a bad idea, why would Koss even entertain them, if — as others allege — he did entertain these discussions? Koss never denies those discussions took place. Never. You can see it yourself, at the Gazette article to which I have linked, how carefully Koss answers, to avoid that direct issue.

Did Heine bother to ask? If he did, what answer did he get? If he got an answer, then why didn’t he report it? If Heine knows that discussions took place, why be part of a story that laughably pretends that these were ‘coerced’ discussions?

Heine’s story is incomplete and evasive to me, and it reads more like a press-release for the district attorney than solid reporting.

If you can’t bother to ask the obvious questions, you’re not serving our community. more >>

Press

Writing and Readership

by  • 

I love this beautiful town.

I’ve been writing and publishing posts at FREE WHITEWATER for over seven months’ time. My first post was on May 22nd, and I’ve written over two-hundred thirty posts since then. This website has photos, an email link, a calendar, a translation tool, and a searchable archive. (Videos of places in town — a much delayed feature — will begin soon. Really.)

I write all of my own copy.

I much appreciate readers who stop by, and I’d like to tell you about readership figures for this website in 2007.

(Quick note: When I write about readership figures, I am writing about actual, local readers, not inflated numbers that include automated visits by search engines, etc., or visits by people in foreign countries who almost certainly have no connection to Whitewater. People abroad are always welcome to visit — bienvenue! — but I am not including them when I refer to readership. These figures do not include people who revisit more than once each week. Throwing in revisits pushes the daily figures way up. Readership statistics that do not filter for automated visits or revisits are often much-inflated.)

When I started writing in May, I had no idea if anyone would visit the site. I thought that I might get a few, local readers per week. I would have been very happy if twenty unique, local people visited per week. To me, that would have been a huge number — imagine if even twenty people would read what you wrote each week? That’s a large number of people — you could fill a baseball diamond with that number. I would have considered myself fortunate with that many readers.

After my first four weeks, I had about fifty local readers a week. Many visited for a fair amount of time, and I was greatly surprised. Weekly unique readership kept climbing, in each succeeding month — to one-hundred, then later two-hundred, then a few hundred, and then several hundred. Local readership keeps growing at an impressive rate.

(One surprise is that, based on my stats and email, I have considerably fewer university readers than one might expect. The vast majority of my readers are not from the university. The upside is that the university can be a growth-market for FREE WHITEWATER, so to speak.)

I wrote a few emails over the period announcing the site, but I have no idea if they increased readership. People whom I had never contacted started to email to me with comments, favorable and unfavorable, and then I realized that word-of-mouth must have taken hold.

FREE WHITEWATER now has a weekly, unique local readership that’s well over half the size of the century-old Whitewater Register’s reported, paid weekly subscription number of 1,569. FREE WHITEWATER is neither a general-interest newspaper nor an online bulletin board — it’s a website of independent commentary. I didn’t expect this number of readers, and I am very fortunate. That’s not bad for only seven months’ time. Woo!

(Of course, no one really knows if all those paid subscribers of the Register are actually readers. Some might use their weekly issue for food preservation

or avian housekeeping, and some other subscribers might be illiterate drug addicts or lunatics. Who knows?)

I would have kept writing — with the same content and tone — if only one person read my website. I didn’t pander to make people happy, sugarcoat what I had to say, or veer from my opinions to increase readership. The best thing a blogger can do is to be true to his conscience. I think that it’s the best way to approach others.

Some people wrote and told me that if I changed my tone, my readership would increase. That wasn’t the right course to me — I wanted to write what I believed, the way I wanted to write. I really never thought that I’d be fortunate enough to have this many readers, but I wanted to write in a blogging style true to my convictions. If only a few people read what I wrote, I would have been happy. If even one person emailed now and then, I would have been amazed. This course has paid off.

Thanks very much to everyone who stops by to visit FREE WHITEWATER. I write based on my convictions, and I appreciate your readership. The world is a busy place, and I want to thank you for taking the time to visit this website, and to write to me. The email that I receive is always interesting, and in each message I learn something from what you’ve written. (Many messages are serious, some funny, and a few almost heart-breaking.)

There will be more posts ahead this week and through the weekend.

The new year will be even busier for FREE WHITEWATER than 2007 has been!

Best regards,

JOHN ADAMS

City

Tone

by  • 

I receive a steady volume of email, only a portion of which I post. I respond to other messages privately. Sometimes, I’ve received messages that dislike the tone of FREE WHITEWATER. The concerns usually fall into two categories: (1) the tone is too critical, and (2) more people would read FREE WHITEWATER if the tone were not so critical. (I will address point #2 about readership in another post, and show how readership has climbed each month, and relate how many local residents visit FREE WHITEWATER weekly.)

My tone is, often, critical. It’s a blog of personal and independent commentary, and like many blogs, it adopts a critical tone. As blogs go, it’s not nearly as critical as many popular, large blogs. This medium constrains and guides style, but not content. (When I write in my vocation, it’s a style suited for my work, and different from FREE WHITEWATER. When I speak to people, it’s in a style suited for conversation, and different from FREE WHITEWATER. The content, however, would be the same when discussing matters in our town — just the same.)

This website is nowhere so critical as many pamphlets and newspapers that formed the robust commentary in the America’s first century, for example. It’s not even close to that vigorous tradition. If anything, I have been restrained, and have exercised considerable forbearance. We were, and are, a rough-hewn people. We have always left the fancy, and superficially polite, to England and other embarrassing places. I would always prefer an ill-tailored president over a well-manicured king, and a messy republic over an orderly kingdom.

We are this way because we were, and yet remain, a people that loves liberty and free expression. There are, however, two groups who argue against truly free speech, for different reasons. The first group comprises those in this town who like the position that they have, and feel that they’re entitled to special consideration. There’s a belief some people have here, that position justifies, excuses, and entitles. They think and act situationally — if they are so-and-so, then they should be trusted, and they are entitled. I reject this view. They are justified, excused, and entitled only through law and morality, not based on an appeal to their status. When the town faction acts, they act first and foremost based on status — they ask and expect trust based on who they are, or what they claim to be.

Their status is unimpressive to me. It should be unimpressive to any resident and citizen: they are just people, neither more nor less. I can be neither smooth-talked nor cajoled into support for what I oppose. I could never be co-opted onto a board, commission, etc. I lack for nothing that those I criticize could give me; the tradition of which I am a grateful inheritor gives me more than they could take. They ask that speech be curbed, but they would never curb their actions in return. In any event, my speech — and yours — is a right, yet their actions are often in disregard of others’ rights. We could never have a fair trade: some would sacrifice what liberty allows in exchange for others’ ceasing a disregard of their fellow residents’ rights. That’s the worst possible bargain.

They stand on local status as entitlement, and that’s why the exercise of speech rights is so disturbing to them. One would think that Whitewater were a small, corrupt island in the middle of nowhere, for all the difference it makes to those who oppose mere speech on the basis of their inflated sense of local self-importance. They don’t have a meritorious position; they have a mistaken view of themselves and of the rights of others in our city.

There is a second group, though, that deserves more careful consideration. It includes those progressives who would like a different tone so that society, in their view, could be a better place. They’re not self-interested; they seek social justice. I am not unsympathetic to them: like all who share my support for “free markets, individual liberty, and peace,” I want a better world. The search for social justice is a noble end. It should never be easily dismissed.

I am convinced and confirmed in the view that greater liberty and expression, and not limitation in speech or action, will bring about that better world. I wish we had a world where we could be softer; I am convinced it only invites a few to misuse public authority to bully others, all the while that few tells the community that we should be grateful for what they’ve done.

Through the full exercise of speech rights, and the liberating, empowering operation of free markets in labor and capital, I believe that we will have that better world. I am no less a true believer than those who seek a ‘progressive’ solution. On the contrary, we libertarians believe that our liberty-based views are the true ‘progressive’ solution, making life easier for more people than any other project, plan, or scheme.

For those who merely seek to defend their distorted notions and status while disregarding others, I am unsympathetic. For those, though, who in their own way, seek a better community through promoting social justice, I have considerable sympathy. It is, merely, that I doubt their preferred means will achieve those noble ends.

Press

Depression over the Holiday Schedule for the Whitewater Register?

by  • 

I saw in the latest copy of the Whitewater Register (a copy that I found in a gutter wrapped around a bottle of MD 20/20) that the paper’s holiday schedule will push back publication by an entire day.

How will all the members of the town faction bear up under pressure of that twenty-four hour delay? Will their hands shake and their eyes water as they wait convulsing for the next fine edition?

If all the workers at the paper’s printing press won the lottery, and quit to travel around the world, would sensible people miss the paper? I don’t see how.

I do understand that the paper plays a vital, nearly therapeutic role for the stodgy members of the town faction, needing the paper to convince themselves that they’re justified in what they do.

Although I would not be inclined to test the theory, I have heard that the paper makes far more sense while drinking a tall glass of Mogen David 20/20, in the original Red Grape Flavor, or, for the adventurous, Blue Raspberry Flavor with Bling Bling.

Uncategorized

Coming Attractions for the Half-Week of December 26th

by  • 

This (half) week’s coming attractions include —

• Depression over the Holiday Schedule for the Whitewater Register?

• Review of the latest School Board meeting

• Choice in Education

• Review of the latest Common Council meeting

• Clear Information on the Lawsuit against Larry Meyer

Holiday

Merry Christmas

by  • 

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin’s name was Mary. And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”

And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”

And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.

Lk 1:26-35

City, Police

Police and Fire Commission: Hirings without Oversight?

by  • 

Under the Wisconsin Statutes that provide for the scope and authority of a Police and Fire Commission, there is a requirement that the

Board Shall Approve a Department’s Subordinates. “The chiefs shall appoint subordinates subject to approval by the board.” 62.13(4)(a)

A review of the minutes of our Whitewater PFC reveals that citizen approval of promotions is rightly understood to be a requirement of the law. That’s why our PFC will sometimes go into closed session, for interviews or discussions of promotions.

Did that happen in early 2005, with the approval of interviews for a patrolman and a sergeant?

In the February 2, 2005 minutes, under “New business: Chief’s report — ” one finds a notion on “Special Session to be announced for late may [sic] for interviews for a patrolman and the vacant Sergeant position.”

Did that legally-required citizen approval take place before these positions were filled? It doesn’t seem like it. Here’s why.

The next meeting is a May 4, 2005 meeting, at which the last meeting listed — for which minutes were approved — was the February 2, 2005 meeting. So, no meeting is listed or mentioned or recorded between February 2 and May 4, 2005.

Yet, at the May 4, 2005 meeting, the minutes reveal that Chief Coan had already hired an officer and promoted a sergeant. Here’s what the minutes record, under “New Business: Chief’s Report:”

Discussed new hiring of officer and promotion of Sergeant. Favorable response within Department.”

So the promotions had already taken place, without approval of our PFC, as the law requires?

When Chief Coan announced this at the meeting, how did the PFC members respond? Here’s what the minutes record:

A Wendt/Triebold motion was passed unanimously requesting that PFC members be notified when there is a swearing in of officers, so that PFC members can be present at the ceremony.”

The minutes reveal that (1) the PFC did not approve the promotions as the law requires, (2) were unaware of the hirings as a citizen body until after they had taken place, and (3) thought no better of the importance of their roles than to ask if they could present at the swearing-in ceremony!

Those are the minutes as published to our community. Our PFC has failed in the most basic matters of oversight, and so we are left with a police chief who acts, however poorly, as a law unto himself. Did no one have enough self-respect to ask that the law be applied properly? At other committees and boards, the smallest irregularity is a subject of great debate. On the Police and Fire Commission, one of the most important oversight roles in the community, the clear requirements of the law (“subject to approval”) were apparently ignored.

More of my assessment of our Police and Fire Commission can be found at posts entitled, “Police and Fire Commission: Importance and Authority, “Police and Fire Commission: Reasonable Standards,” “Police and Fire Commission: Minutes,” “Police and Fire Commission: Performance Generally,” and “Police and Fire Commission: Citizen Complaints.” more >>

Uncategorized

William Schaefer and Whitewater

by  • 

Well over a decade ago, Maryland Governor William Schaefer threatened political critics in an abusive way: he had Maryland employees take pictures of his opponents at rallies, etc., and sent those photos to them. So great was his sense of entitlement, so arrogant was his presumption of the use of his political authority, that he felt this conduct justified. It caused a great outcry, and Schaefer eventually met a bad end — he was defeated in a Democratic primary race for state comptroller after a string of remarks ridiculing women, non-English speakers, Koreans, residents of the Maryland eastern shore, and AIDS patients, among other groups.

He lived in contempt of many of his fellow citizens, and felt entitled to use public resources to intimidate his law-abiding political critics. Here’s what one of the targets of the photographs had to say to Schaefer, in reply: “”It doesn’t bother me,” she said. “It won’t stop me” from protesting. “In fact, it might make me protest sooner.”

Well said! No decent person should ever sacrifice the full rights of citizenship to an official who misuses his authority against political critics.

Could anything like that happen in Whitewater? Would anyone here — holding public office — ever ask municipal employees to observe, track, or identify political opponents? To do so would be a misuse of public office, a violation of the promises on the City of Whitewater’s website and in other publications, and actionable under Wisconsin law.

It happened in Maryland, but could it happen here?

City, Development, Economy, Free Markets

Student Housing in Whitewater

by  • 

Readers of FREE WHITEWATER know that I have been opposed to a restrictive, anti-market approach to student housing. Whitewater’s leading critic of student-rental housing is dentist-politician Dr. Roy Nosek. Nosek has mentioned, more than once, that student housing is a ‘death-knell’ for a neighborhood.

Recently, I offered three posts critiquing Nosek’s understanding of basic market forces, his apparent cultural bias against student housing, and the weak story that reporter Carla McCann of the GazetteXtra wrote about student housing in Whitewater. (One of the reasons that I described Nosek as having a cultural bias is because as an economic prescription, Nosek’s positions are incoherent; he doesn’t seem to understand the probable economic consequences of his own proposals.)

Since my three posts, a reader pointed me to a follow-up story that McCann wrote about student housing in Whitewater. McCann’s second story on the topic is dated December 15th, and is entitled, “Do Renters Get a Bad Rap?” The second story lists the views of City Council member Max Taylor and Whitewater Developer Russ Walton. They do a good job explaining that (1) the vast majority of students cause no social problems, and (2) new housing units lead to reduced housing costs. Both points are unquestionably true.

I have no idea why McCann did not write a balanced story initially. As I pointed out after her first story, she omitted any points of view from students or landlords. That left the first story as laughably one-sided. These second interviews should have been part of a single story. I’ll note, by the way, that McCann’s first story’s conclusory headline (“Neighborhoods Oppose Housing for UW-W Students”) was biased in favor of Nosek’s position; the second headline’s equivocal nature (Do Renters Get a Bad Rap?) is not similarly supportive of the pro-market position.

Recently, a reader wrote and asked me what might be done about a near-monopoly on student housing by a single landlord. He asked if a subsidy might be necessary to break that monopoly. I promised him an answer, and here it is.

Let’s assume that there is a near-monopoly in favor of a single landlord. There are times when a market does not form, or when conditions prevent a market from functioning. I would favor reductions to entry barriers (zoning restrictions) as the solution to this problem, over subsidies. I know, of course, that subsidies are meant to address entry barriers of a different sort, so under an effectual monopoly, I would not dismiss the idea easily; the practical return to a normal market is a worthy goal. Subsidies would be my last resort, but we could consider them if that need came to pass.

The problem, of course, is that zoning restrictions and an overly-aggressive enforcement culture work to favor an incumbent landlord over new entrants, and make the use of a subsidy by new entrants difficult, if not impossible.

There’s irony in all this. Nosek’s support for harsh zoning restrictions leads to a few ill-consequences: (1) it favors incumbent landlords over new entrants, thus perpetuating an assumed near-monopoly, (2) it makes use of a subsidy difficult to impossible, as new entrants could not use it, (3) it favors incumbents and allows them to raise rental rates, (4) because it inhibits new construction in zoning-restricted areas, it forces incumbents to use profits in less-optimal ways than their area of greatest skill (as landlords), (5) drives demand for student housing to a black market, (6) leads to a need for increasingly intrusive methods of code enforcement to prevent homeowners from choices that satisfy demand for student housing, (7) ultimately prevents homeowners from selling to the highest bidders, who might satisfy that student housing demand. Rentals would cost more, and homeowners would not get the best prices at sale, under Nosek’s approach.

That’s why a subsidy is not feasible, now. Nosek’s opposition to student housing is ill-considered, and will lead this city down an economically irrational path, made worse by mean-spirited, intrusive municipal enforcement. more >>

Cartoons & Comics

How the Grinch Stole Christmas Break

by  • 

Christmas Tales: How the Grinch Stole Christmas Break by John Adams

Every Student
Down in U-ville
Liked Christmas Break a lot…

But the Grinch,
Who lived just South of U-ville,
Did NOT!

The Grinch hated Christmas Break! The whole winter season!
Now, please don’t ask why. No one quite knows the reason.
It could be because it was the start of their fun.
Perhaps, because he was sorry their work was all done.

But, whatever the reason,
Their work or their fun,
He stood there on Christmas Break, hating the U’s,
Staring down from his office with a sour, Grinchy frown
At the warm lighted dorms below in our town.

For he was sure every student down in U-ville beneath
Was busy hanging a fresh-grown hemp wreath.

“And they’re hanging their posters!” he snarled with a sneer.
“Tomorrow is Break! It’s practically here!”
Then he growled, with his grinch fingers nervously drumming,
“I MUST find a way to keep Christmas Break from coming!”
For, tomorrow, he knew…

…All the U girls and boys
Would wake up bright and early. They’d rush for their buses!
And then! Oh, the Rallies! Oh, the Dances! The Fusses!
That’s one thing he hated! The FUSSES! The FUSSES!

They should stay quiet, they shouldn’t talk,
He really hated it when they’d leave the campus to walk
Around all the town that he thought was only his
He’d fix them good, he’s show them what is

He’d tried to keep them away,
Anyway that he could
He even petitioned the city
for a fence made of wood

But fences and high walls
Just weren’t quite enough
He’d drive to the campus,
and take all their stuff

And the more the Grinch thought of the Christmas-Break fling
The more the Grinch thought, “I must stop this whole thing!
“Why for fifty-three years I’ve put up with it now!
I MUST stop Break from coming!
…But HOW?”

Then he got an idea!
An awful idea!
THE GRINCH
GOT A WONDERFUL, AWFUL IDEA!

“I know just what to do!” The Grinch Laughed in his throat.
And he made a quick Santy Claus hat and a coat.
And he chuckled, and clucked, “What a great Grinchy trick!
“With this coat and this hat, I’ll look just like Saint Nick!”

“All I need is a reindeer…”
The Grinch looked around.
But since reindeer are scarce, there was none to be found.
Did that stop the old Grinch…?
No! The Grinch simply said,
“If I can’t find a reindeer, I’ll ride a squad car instead!”
So he called sidekick, Chief Jim. Then he took some paint, both black and white
And he and he painted the car so it looked just right…

THEN
He loaded some bags
and filled the car to the brim
On a ramshackle squad car
He rode with Chief Jim.

Then the Grinch said, “Go!”
And the car started down
Toward the dorms where the students
Lay a-snooze in our town.

All their dorms were dark. Quiet snow filled the air.
All the students were all dreaming sweet dreams without care
When he came to the first dorm in the square.
“This is stop number one,” The old Grinchy Claus hissed
And he climbed to the roof, empty bags in his fist.

Then he slid down the chimney. A rather tight pinch.
But if Santa could do it, then so could the Grinch.
He got stuck only once, for a moment or two.
Then he stuck his head out of the fireplace flue
Where the student posters all hung in a row.
“These posters,” he grinned, “are the first things to go!”

Then he slithered and slunk, with a smile most unpleasant,
Around the whole room, and he took every present!
iPods! And laptops! Stereos! Snacks!
Calculators! Scooters! Doritos! Backpacks!
And he stuffed them in bags. Then the Grinch, very nimbly,
Stuffed all the bags, one by one, up the chimney!

Then he slunk to the icebox. He took the student feast!
He searched all around, in cupboard and pan
Why, that old Grinch even took their last beer can!

Then he stuffed all the food up the chimney with glee.
“And NOW!” grinned the Grinch, “I will stuff up the tree!”

Then the last thing he took
Was the log for their fire.
On their walls he left nothing but hooks, and some wire.

And the one speck of salsa
That he left in the house
Was a speck that was even too small for a mouse.

Then
He did the same thing
To the other fraternity houses

Leaving specks
Much too small
For the other brothers’ mouses!

It was quarter past dawn…
All the students, still tired by far
All the students, still a-snooze
When he packed up his car,
Packed it up with their stuff! The books! Every box!
The pencils! And the pens! The papers! The Crocs!

Three thousand feet up! Up the side of old Starin,
He rode to the tiptop with his police siren blaring!
“Pooh-pooh to the students!” he was grinch-ish-ly humming.
“They’re finding out now that no Break is coming!
“They’re just waking up! I know just what they’ll do!
“Their mouths will hang open a minute or two
“The all the students down in U-ville will all cry BOO-HOO!”

“That’s a noise,” grinned the Grinch,
“That I simply must hear!”
So he paused. And the Grinch put a hand to his ear.
And he did hear a sound rising over the snow.
It started in low. Then it started to grow…

It’s a story whose end is yet to be told
Of a Grinch who battles those not yet old
And his friends in the city who’d twist every rule
Just to keep those kids locked up in their school!