FREE WHITEWATER

Author Archive for JOHN ADAMS

Uncategorized

Anonymity

by  • 

You’ll meet a few people who believe that commentary published anonymously or pseudonymously is wrong, and should be rejected. They’ll contend that they would never deign to read this website because it’s published pseudonymously.

Kindly remind those people of the society in which they live, as they seem to have forgotten. Those who reject pseudonymous political or social commentary reject the political tradition of this beautiful, free republic. Here’s the truth of our common heritage, as I note on the “About” section of FREE WHITEWATER:

Embracing one of the oldest traditions of free speech in America, FREE WHITEWATER is published anonymously under the pseudonym, JOHN ADAMS. Many of the greatest men of this republic published anonymously, among them Hamilton, Madison, Jay, Paine, and occasionally, John Adams himself.

Those who criticize use of a pseudonym are ignorant and unappreciative of the American tradition of free speech. They arrogantly interpose their own selfish sentiments against of the liberties assured for citizens of this country.

Uncategorized

Quotations

by  • 

You know, and I know too, that contemporary American professional life spills over with slogans, catchphrases, and ideas in flashy guise. Many of these phrases, like inspirational sayings on cards, or on motivational posters, have value. It’s hard to argue that they’re not true, sometimes, somewhere.

I don’t begrudge these sayings their place in ordinary times. I find them both puzzling and ineffective in our times, in Whitewater today. I have teased about the use of these motivational quotations in the past. I believe that they just don’t ring true to our current circumstances. It’s not that I lack for humor or inspiration: it’s that I have, and will, look elsewhere.

People ask for politeness, and criticize commentary that they consider ‘too critical,’ but I am not persuaded that these are more than attempts to prevent or weaken a serious critique.

Whitewater is not a tea party; it’s a city in need of reform. Starting from that premise, calls from champions of the status quo for others to speak softly look like calls for others to disarm unilaterally. It may be couched as helpful advice, but I have my doubts. When bears ask salmon to swim slowly, on the premise that swimming slowly is more refined, one has reason to doubt the sincerity of their request.

I’ll not be following any particular Confucian guidance, for example, anytime soon. There’s more than one reason for rejecting inspiration from that quarter. I’ve strong reason to doubt that Confucian principles lead to a liberty-loving society. I’ve also reason to doubt that Confucian thinking is – ultimately — compatible with Church teaching (unpersuasive efforts of a few theologians to reconcile the two notwithstanding).

The inspiration and tradition most useful for our city and its reform will be found among the rich intellectual heritage of this continent, and its antecedents. It’s condescending to think think that we’re in need or use of guidance through sundry quotations.

Beautiful Whitewater

Beautiful Whitewater: Stone Stable Dedication November 17th

by  • 

A few days ago, I visited the Stone Stable site, and walked around the property of that impressive restoration effort. I’ve written about the restoration effort previously, and it is both history and art. There will be a dedication and ribbon cutting effort on Saturday, November 17th at 4 p.m. Here’s the announcement with details of the upcoming dedication:

Stone Stable Dedication
Ribbon-Cutting &
Placement of the Time Capsule

Saturday November 17, 4 p.m.
Reception and refreshments following at City Hall

All are welcome!
Commemorative Program & Medal for each attendee

As a festive and fitting recap of 2007 Whitewater Home-Coming we’re celebrating the completion of the Stone Stable historic reconstruction project. Over 190 donors have made this possible along with volunteer stone cleaners, plan drafters, artists, event planners, wagon drivers, cookie bakers, brainstormers, letter-writers, sign-makers, and more. What a lot of wonderful participation! Thanks to all and please join us for the celebration.

Soon there will be final bills to pay as well as expenses for landscaping and an informative sign. This is your last chance to send a contribution and be on the list of donors to be placed in the Time Capsule. Send your contributions to Stone Stable PO Box 147 Whitewater WI 53190.

The Stone Stable Leadership Group

Ginny Coburn & Jerry Wendt
Carol Cartwright
Kim Clarksen
Dawn Hunter
Bruce Parker
Jim Stewart
Kristine Zaballos

City, Elkhorn, Police

Questions on the Settlement in the Larry Meyer Case

by  • 

Larry Meyer, now retired, was a controversial member of the Whitewater Police Department, and is the defendant in a federal civil suit. Meyer’s counsel filed a motion for summary judgment in March, but the Fourth Amendment federal constitutional claims of the Plaintiff, Steve Cvicker, survived that motion.

Previously, I have published posts about the damage that Meyer (and Chief Coan) have done to the reputation and administration of justice in Whitewater.

See, for example:

Burying the Story: Update on Larry Meyer

Larry Meyer’s Disgraceful Legacy

Jim Coan and Larry Meyer’s Shameful Legacy

Today, I’ll offer some questions about the supposed settlement in the suit against Larry Meyer. Questions in black, answers in blue.

Q1. In this case, how was announcement of a settlement communicated?

A. In a letter dated September 20, 2007, the attorney for Larry Meyer wrote the court, and stated that a settlement had been reached between the parties. These are the opening words of that letter, a public document: “I am pleased to report that the parties have reached a settlement agreement. We will be submitting a stipulation and order for dismissal in the near future.”

Q2. What does the time since September 20th without a final settlement suggest?

A: Two likely possibilities —
1. That no one’s concerned about rushing to memorialize the final details or
2. That the parties are now in dispute, and that there is not, completely, an agreement between them. Press coverage in the Gazette and The Week suggests that, at time reporting, there was not a full agreement.

Q3. If the parties are still in dispute, why would that be?

A. There are two possibilities –
1. Money. The parties may not be able to come to terms over money. I don’t think it’s money.
2. Wording of agreements: (1) Defendant’s settlement without acknowledgment of wrongdoing, (2) Dismissal of the lawsuit so that plaintiff cannot pursue any of the claims in the lawsuit subsequently, (3) Defendant may be insisting that the plaintiff agree not to discuss any aspect of the lawsuit as a condition of settlement. If number (3) is true, then it involves worry over embarrassment to someone bigger than Meyer.

Q4. If the parties are still in (partial) dispute, why did the defendant’s attorney talk about a settlement in the Gazette
and The Week?

A. There are three possibilities —
1. Defense counsel felt that the parties were very close, and wanted to communicate the fact.
2. Defense counsel felt that the parties were very close, and hoped that press coverage would pressure the other side to settle.
3. Defense counsel felt that the parties were close enough safely to contend at the time of the newspaper interview that settlement was close. That’s a matter of interpretation, though: one party might have a different view of ‘details’ than another party.

Q5. What did Larry Meyer’s counsel say about the settlement as reported in the Gazette and The Week?

A. The Week reported on October 24th that Meyer’s attorney said the sides were still working on settlement details.

Q6. The letter from Larry Meyer’s attorney to the court said that a settlement had been reached. If the press coverage 5 weeks later said that no settlement was final, does that mean that the letter to the court was false?

A. The letter to the court only had to have been true as of the date it was written, September 20th. If, at a later time, the negotiations stalled, the letter would not have been false. (If a letter to the court were knowingly false at the time it was written, then that letter would be a serious breach of legal ethics. Presumably, if the letter were false at the time made, an opposing counsel would seize the opportunity to dispute before the court the statements in the letter.)

Q7. Is settlement an embarrassment for the city and its police department?

A. Yes, definitely. As I noted before, Meyer “will contend that he’s admitted no wrong-doing, but that’s whistling past the graveyard. Meyer would not likely have settled — not Meyer, nor any other excuse-making, self-justifying member of the Whitewater Police Department — if he’d been more confident of his conduct.”

It’s interesting that the settlement story ran in two Bliss Communications publications, the Gazette and The Week, but not the Register. The Register is supernaturally supportive of the Whitewater Police Department and the county’s prosecutors in Elkhorn.

If the story about a possible settlement were wholly favorable to the city, the Register would have published the headline on page one, above the fold, in one-hundred point type. It didn’t, as those flacking for the defense/police must have realized that the story has a downside: settlement is far less than vindication before a jury. Meyer would have to take the stand in a civil suit, and that would be – put mildly – a disaster for him. Here’s the sensible quote that the defense probably didn’t want to see in print:

UW-Whitewater Assistant Professor of Political Science Jolly Emrey said most harassment suits settle because it is the quickest and cheapest. Settling could also save the city embarrassment from what could happen at a jury trial, Emrey said.

At the same time, the Gazette and The Week have been fair, and have had coverage on both sides of the case against Meyer. That’s about all one should hope, but it’s not adequate from the defense/police point of view: they’d surely prefer coverage like the Register’s coverage, with only one side of the story. (I’ve mentioned, though, that the Register offers less than meets the eye; it’s a dismal, failed paper.)

The Week has been fair. That newspaper gave Whitewater Police Chief Jim Coan ample copy to tell his side of the story, for example, on the Star Packaging raid. Coan’s problem is that, even when given a chance to speak, he reveals how weak and empty his claims are. If the city had a public relations firm, Coan would either have received basic media training, or would have been kept from the press. His statements are revealing self-parodies.

Q8. What do the prosecutors in Elkhorn have to do with a federal case?

A. One of them, Assistant District Attorney Dennis Krueger, now with the Wisconsin Attorney General’s Office, offered an affidavit in which he stated that Meyer destroyed evidence gathered in an investigation, and did not follow prosecutor’s instructions.

If the case against Meyer progressed, through additional depositions or to trial, UWW Professor Emrey’s quote about “embarrassment” might prove all too true, for Meyer, Coan, others in Whitewater, and Elkhorn.

City, Inbox Reader Mail

Inbox: Reader Mail (City Managers)

by  • 

I received an email this week asking me about my opinion on the difference between the current City Manager, Kevin Brunner, and his predecessor, Gary Boden. The email’s in black, and my reply is in blue.

Question: Just wanted to know what your opinion was of the former city manager, Gary Boden compared to the current city manager?

Adams: Simply, I’d say that Boden was a more temperamental and idiosyncratic manager. It may seem surprising, considering the circumstances of Boden’s departure, but I’ve met two sensible people recently argued the case for how good Boden had been for Whitewater. They contended that, in many ways, Boden began a focus on Cravath and downtown that anticipated the current administration’s focus. They supported the current approach, and felt that Boden deserved credit for his earlier work along those lines.

Whatever the merits of the argument, Boden’s time in Whitewater ended tempestuously. I cannot imagine any circumstances in which the same outcome would befall our current city manager. It’s just not possible, because this is a much more conventional, ‘professional-standard’ administration.

Anyone who has spent any time in a successful, modern corporation would recognize the style, manner, and outlook of the current administration. That’s not meant as an insult — it’s just a straightforward contention — for better and worse. There’s great strength in a steady, even-toned approach, and this is a steady, even-toned approach.

The current administration’s emphasis on decorum and politeness is useful, almost always. (Decorum and politeness were not, I think, principal aspects of Boden’s approach.) It has challenges, though: (1) it may discourage hearing hard news, and (2) it may discourage confronting misconduct in others. If all were well here, these things wouldn’t matter.

I am not convinced that Boden, had he remained in office, would have planned along lines similar to the current administration. He, too, though, emphasized planning.

In that fundamental way, the former and current administrations are similar.

City

Harmony and the Latest Council Meetings, 10/23 and 10/30

by  • 

Not long ago, the Common Council had a session devoted to ways to work together more cordially, etc. At the last two Council meetings, the more harmonious way has been evident. Rants are down, and politeness is up — good for all concerned.

The interesting question is whether this harmony will hold when the sessions are not fixed on budget presentations, department by department. If idle hands are the devil’s workshop, then an open agenda is a grandstander’s opportunity.

City, Police

Our Enforcement Culture

by  • 

Budgetary proposals are important, but there is a more important reform that Whitewater can undertake. Changes to the way that Whitewater imposes code-enforcement and criminal fines would do much to help our city step away from a reliance on futile punitive measures that operate as a regressive form of taxation, and as an incentive to catching and fining people to balance the city budget.

Whitewater relies on a large, expanding enforcement scheme of fines and penalties. Nuisance code violations, parking tickets, underage drinking citations – they all fill the city coffers. The scope of fines should be reduced significantly. There are five problems with current imposition of punitive fines and penalties in our city.

First, that sort of fine does not affect serious, violent crime. Those reprehensible criminal acts are not the subject of mere nuisance fines.

Second, Whitewater’s dependence on these fines to balance its budget places fiscal incentive in the way of legitimate enforcement. Everyone in America gripes that his speeding ticket, etc. is used to help his given city make its budget. It’s true in Whitewater.

Third, too many of those who issue fines and penalties are poorly led and trained. This is a police force led by those who disclaim responsibility for consequences. That’s a message of unaccountability. Without accountability, even the best officers, with the best initial training, will slide into mediocre practices. In a force from a small town, with a less competitive pool of applicants, the only hedge against mediocrity is accountability. Good leadership takes an average force and makes it better through discipline and high expectations. A weak leader shuns holding employees accountable, in the theory that they’ll like him more, and in the mistaken impression that they cannot do better in any event. Eventually, he makes any excuse and rationalization he can to puff them up, and justify their – and his — questionable conduct. That’s the problem we face in Whitewater.

Fourth, Whitewater has an undeniable problem with the inequitable imposition of fines and penalties. This problem is so endemic to Whitewater’s culture that it’s even been mentioned by elected officials at Common Council meetings. Signs, banners, etc. – some people get fined, some people do not. Our city is rife – far more than other places – with accounts of how some people are fined, and others are never cited, despite similar violations. It’s been a problem for years, and no one has made it better. Some people have – not without justification – concluded that they cannot be fined, based on their connections and status within the city.

(Under these circumstances, the current administration’s suggestion that we should add more neighborhood enforcement resources, etc. is ill-advised, and tone-deaf to the serious challenge from bias.)

Fifth, the over-dependence on these fines operates as a regressive form of taxation. (Readers know that I favor a much smaller government, requiring lower taxes. That’s a standard libertarian position.) Reliance on fines and penalties collected for revenue generation is fundamentally different from real estate taxes that derive from real property’s assessed value. Whitewater’s reliance on fines as a revenue source transforms a criminal and civil penalty into another source of revenue – a source of revenue that disproportionately affects lower income residents.

If fines were not so critical to balancing the budget – and if they were imposed fairly – justice would be their principal object, and penalties would be father removed from being merely another element of our budget.

When they become just another, vital element of the budget, they should be held to standards of taxation and fiscal policy, and not merely principles of punitive sanction. As a source of taxation, penalties imposed to generate revenue disproportionately impact poor and working class residents. That’s why they’re fiscally regressive.

The current administration is outwardly progressive and polite in manner, yet it consistently ignores the broken character of our enforcement culture. Inequitable administration of justice cannot be, by definition, justice. Silence, or politeness, helps us not at all.

My libertarian’s angle for two proposed changes for the city budget were difficult, and this proposal is more difficult still. It is as important as it is difficult: unjust enforcement is among the most serious problems our small city faces. We are citizens of a troubled city, where the fairness and impartiality of justice are in question. All the shrill cries of professionalism do not make it so – experience refutes those empty claims.

City, Economy, Free Markets

On the 2008 City Budget: A Libertarian’s Angle

by  • 

Here’s a libertarian’s angle on the Whitewater 2008 proposed budget. As I mentioned in my last post, it’s a cautious, competent budget.

In good times, a budget like this might make sense. Unfortunately, these are not good times for many of Whitewater’s families: the family poverty rate is higher here than in nearby communities. That’s the astonishing fact of life in a city that, by the appearance of her streets, looks better than ever.

The best medicine for an ailing municipal economy is less government spending, reduced taxation, fewer fees, and less regulation (regulation operating as a crypto-tax). The budget is only one of a municipality’s areas of opportunity: some reforms can be made through a budget, but others can be addressed only apart from typical municipal spending. Those other challenges include uncertain tax incremental financing schemes, counter-productive ‘smart growth’ strategies, and a regime of cumbersome regulatory hoops.

From a libertarian’s point of view, this is exactly the time – before a recession, but when the municipal economy is ailing – to reduce spending. The entirety of spending reductions should be passed on as tax relief. The amount of spending reductions might be based on a reduction of two current sources of revenue: (1) the tax levy, and (2) the fees that the city charges for permits, licenses, etc.

The proposed 2008 budget assumes an increase in the tax levy, but a reduction in the municipal tax rate. (The absolute level of levy increase rests on an increase in construction.)

These are relative matters, but a spending reduction in equivalent to five percent of the proposed tax levy each year for the next three would be a useful start. The levy currently stands at over two million dollars per year, so this reduction for the first year would amount to a reduction of approximately one-hundred thousand dollars. Over three years, the city would have spending significantly and noticeably less than 2007.

There is a second easy fix. An immediate reduction of selected city fees, license registrations, or permit charges, for businesses and consumers. This should be coupled with an agreement to forego any new fees without a super-majority agreement of the Common Council.

Both of these reductions in revenue must be offset through reductions in spending (a municipality or state government cannot run a deficit, lacking as they do the ability to issue currency).

The total cost of these reductions in revenue in these three years would be manageable. These estimated spending reductions, passed on as tax and fee relief, assume no lift in the city’s economy.

I am convinced, however, that they would create positive change in our local economy.

It’s never easy to see where cost reductions will take place. Hard as it may seem, I would suggest that these spending reductions be offset through a reduction in the municipal work force, with part — but only part — from a reduction in so-called neighborhood services and enforcement costs. There’s a double-gain by reducing there: (1) the city reduces spending, and (2) the city sensibly lessens a regulatory and enforcement culture that’s corrosive to individual liberty and economic growth. The push to increase Whitewater’s position as ‘nanny-city’ will undermine – not improve – life and property values. Our regulatory and enforcement culture does not improve neighborhoods; it burdens and inhibits liberty and growth. We cannot boost free-market real estate prices through code-enforcement diktat.

Now, I do not expect that anyone will take up either libertarian reform; in any given year, the need’s not so apparent. I do believe, however, that these proposals would do more to spur growth than the theory that municipally-financed construction will entice developers and spur growth. In time, I believe that it will become clear that the current course will not uplift enough people, and that a more reform-oriented (libertarian, to me) approach will be needed.

These are not only changes a libertarian might make for reform of the government and improvement in our economy, but they are feasible, simple changes in our budget. (I’ll have more on reform to tax incremental financing, Community Development, fines and penalties, and our regulatory culture, in other posts.)

City

On the 2008 City Budget: Overview

by  • 

Quick thoughts on the proposed 2008 City Budget. The presentation to our Common Council amounted to over 198 pages, presented in two increments, over the last two council sessions.

The October 23rd presentation involved six key areas: Finance, Parks and Recreation, Planning/Zoning/Code Enforcement/Buildings, Administration, Young Memorial Library, and the Library Special Revenue Fund.

The October 30th presentation involved twelve key areas: Information Technology, Parkland Development, Fire and Rescue, Cable TV, CDA, Police, Public Works, Water Utility, Wastewater Utility, Stormwater Utility, Solid Waste/Recycling Fund, Ride Share.

It’s a cautious, competent budget. The overall increase in the budget proposal is slightly over 2%. That’s a conservative increase, and nowhere as profligate as some federal increases, or increases in other states and small cities. It is, as the administration notes, an increase less than annual jump in the federal consumer price index.

I’ve read through these pages, and like anyone, I could always suggest a few areas that I might like changed. Out of millions of dollars dollars, a few changes would always be likely. Overall, though, it’s not significantly different from last year.

Because it’s not a significant departure from the past, the proposal will keep us on our present fiscal course. In the end, I do not believe that will provide enough growth for the city, but it certainly won’t take us off course, either.

Next: How a libertarian might change the budget, to reduce the scope of government, spur additional growth, and make Whitewater a less-regulated place.

Police, Press

Catching up with the Register, October 25th Issue

by  • 

From the October 25th issue, on a story about an arrest in an overnight standoff —

How many police officers and sheriff’s deputies does it take to persuade an apparently suicidal man to leave his home? In Whitewater, it takes approximately 30.

What is a “suicide type statement,” by the way? It’s how an inarticulate man describes someone who reportedly threatened suicide.

What did Whitewater Chief Coan say about the apprehension of a despondent domestic-abuse suspect, surrounded by thirty armed officers?

Wait for it …. “Coan commended his officers for their poise and professionalism in the stressful, tense situation.”

Doesn’t anyone just say “good work,” and leave it that that, any longer?