From a kind reader in town:
Dear John Adams,
I just ran across your site today, and it is very impressive. A bright
spotlight is exactly what this town needs.
Adams: Thanks much!
From a former member of the Whitewater Unified School District Board:
I have no idea who you are, but I love your blog. Keep it up!
Adams: Thanks for your kind words, and thoughts on education in Whitewater. Much appreciated!
From a reader who identified himself as ‘Aaron Burr’ — his remarks in black, my replies thereafter in blue.
John,
I couldn’t agree with you more concerning Steve Spear. If you are
correct that he has applied to get his old job as municipal judge back,
that is appalling. Under no circumstances should he be placed back in
this position.
I take strong exception to some of your comments about Jim Stewart and
the whitewaterbanner.com. Of course, it is more of an information
source, rather than a true journalistic source, and yes, having an
archive and some stronger navigational tools would make that site
stronger. However, it is unnecessary to take aim at him for his
cheerfulness or optimism. It is nasty to compare him to the boy
searching for a pony in a pile of manure. You insult all of us with
that comparison. I ask that you retract this portion of your blog
immediately. The civil thing to do would be to then privately apologize
to Jim for such an offensive comparison. That, obviously, is your
choice.
Most sincerely yours,
“Aaron Burr”
P.S. I have no problem with you knowing my name, as that is easily
ascertained from my e-mail address. However, I am most serious that you
have crossed the line in your attack on Jim Stewart. Please pull this
back! (And no, despite my pen name, this is not a challenge to a duel).
Adams: Spear’s an example of much that’s wrong with our small town, and the unwillingness of officeholders to speak against him — while they always had every legal right to do so — is one of the sad failures of nerve in our small town.
On the Banner, I’ll offer a few remarks. Neither a retraction nor apology is in order. You very much misunderstand the quotation from Reagan. Reagan used the anecdote throughout his career, in different versions, and often applied the story of the boy as optimist not only to others, but also to himself, sometimes favorably, sometimes self-deprecatingly. It was, by many accounts, his favorite anecdote. Your request is overwrought. If my slight remarks on Stewart lead you to expect an apology, I can scarcely imagine that you’re able to pick up a daily newspaper anywhere in America without demanding daily at least several public (or private) apologies.
I would be the first to say that Stewart, as publisher, has a First Amendment right to publish his perspective as he wishes. I don’t doubt that he loves Whitewater, as in my way I do (no less than he does).
His optimism, though, is hardly an unalloyed good, or a pure benefit to the town. You write of Stewart as though he were the actor Jimmy Stewart: a community treasure above reproach. I see him differently — as a publisher and politician, whose website is as legitimate a subject of criticism as a newspaper would be. A disposition to optimism is beneficial only when the fundamental conditions of a place are sound. If one believes, as I do, that there are fundamental challenges facing Whitewater — beautiful thought it is — then Stewart’s optimism is both an occasional distraction and impediment to problem-solving and reform.
Stewart’s not just a publisher, after all; he’s a member of the Common Council, too. There’s a way in which his ultra-optimistic website is an extended campaign advertisement for the status quo, and an endorsement of his incumbency, and that of others. Stewart is free to publish as he wishes, but he can hardly hold himself out as an apolitical, unaffected citizen. He’s involved in many of the subjects that he covers, and his news items often include topics on which he has, or will, vote as a Council member. (Most readers likely know of his political role, and he includes his own name in many stories about Council votes, etc., of course.) Still, he’s often writing about himself when he writes about city government, as it were.
Stewart’s not unwilling, now and then, to venture from innocuous descriptions of local charity events and high school sports into more controversial topics. Recently, he trumpeted the conviction of a local businessman in a controversial police action by hyper-linking to a story using the words of the businessman’s plea. Nice touch, for those who saw the plea as vindication. (I would have respected Stewart more if he just wrote that he believed the effort was justified, but he was willing to send that same message without writing so in his own words.) His coverage of the proposed creation of new Tax Incremental Districts — on which he will vote — had been occasionally sloppy and uninsightful. (I’ll write more on the Tax Incremental Financing and TIF districts this week.) His optimism, such as it is, wanders into endorsements of incumbency — his and others.
You take exception to my application of Reagan’s remark for Stewart, but I thought that it was, on balance, less critical than my comment that the city might just as well adopt Stewart’s website as its own. That latter comment cuts — as it was meant to — two ways. The city’s website’s not that good, and Stewart’s publication is sometimes a valentine to incumbency and the status quo.
As for dueling, I am fortunate that I did not choose the pseudonym Hamilton, as I would have been a better and easier target for you.
Steve Spear, perpetual vulgarian, disgraced, former municipal judge, still persists in the notion that his former office belongs to him — he’s submitted an application to be appointed to the office from which he resigned in July. (That’s this July.) Perhaps you’ve seen Spear walking around town these past few weeks, plotting his comeback:
Who will stand against this menace? We will need to fight fire with fire.
The best candidate to stand against a vulgar, little nothing is a vulgar celebrity:
Who else to rival Spear except Pee Wee Herman?
If, as some may believe, Spear’s an astute judge, or a family man, or perhaps someone who has a history of working with youth, then Pee Wee’s even better! Herman — Paul Reubens — is more than good with youth — he had his own children’s show, after all. Where Spear has been covered only in small town papers, Pee Wee’s scandal was national — dare I say, international — news.
Why settle for a two-bit disgrace when we could have a celebrity disgrace?
I’ve written about the Whitewater Banner before, and I thought that I’d post more about that website.
The Banner’s greatest strength is that it posts more Whitewater information online, more quickly, than any other website. Some newspapers post less (e.g., Daily Union, Janesville Gazette, The Week), or nothing at all (Whitewater Register).
I’ve called the Banner a bulletin board, and have not covered it critically, as I have with the no-journalism-at-all approach of the Whitewater Register.
I’ll address the ever-cheerful tone of the Banner in a moment, but first a few matters on format.
As far as I can tell, the Banner has no news archive, and no way to link to individual stories. (Without an archive, linking would be temporary in any event.) Many websites have both of these things, but I don’t know why Stewart’s Banner takes a different approach. Navigation is also sometimes awkward, as stories on sports appear at the bottom of the screen, without a quick way to reach them. (A navigation bar near the top of the page would be helpful.)
Otherwise, it’s a bright, bold format, with strong use of photographs.
Jim Stewart’s on Common Council, and simultaneously a news publisher, but I have met few who seem to mind. One reason might be that readers consider Stewart scrupulously fair; the alternative is that his consistent cheerfulness is easily ignored in the search for basic facts about Whitewater.
Stewart’s Banner reminds me of an anecdote that Reagan told, about a boy who wanted a pony. The boy expected a pony from his parents, but instead discovers only a pile of horse manure in his backyard. Upon seeing the large pile of manure, the boy starts digging furiously, and squeals with delight, “Gosh! I know that there has to be a pony in there somewhere!”
Stewart’s Banner is that small boy from Reagan’s tale.
That’s also why the Banner is not a true journalism site; it would not likely investigate, question, or probe for the truth and deeper meaning of something. I cannot imagine that Stewart would present a contrary opinion on many issues.
The City of Whitewater should not have troubled itself to create a new website — adopting Stewart’s Banner would have been faster.
In fairness, if Stewart started questioning life around here in print, he’d trade one conflict (politician and publisher covering city life) for another (politician and genuine journalist covering city life). I would guess that Stewart will continue as he has, without significant changes, and will publish the most optimistic perspective on life since that of the boy in Reagan’s story.
Over at The Week, Mike Heine has an interview with Jim Coan, Whitewater Police Chief, about the Star Packaging Raid, and the plea of Star Packaging’s owner, Alan Petrie. I’ll leave Coan’s comments, and Heine’s text, in black, and my replies in blue, for easy distinction.
Pending a sentencing hearing, a dark chapter in Whitewater’s police history should be closed.
Monday’s plea hearing for Allen L. Petrie, the 48-year-old owner of Star Packaging, is vindication for the department and a now-retired investigator once accused of racial profiling, Chief James Coan said.
Coan shed light on the investigation by his department in an interview with The Week after Petrie’s plea hearing.
Q: What is the department’s reaction to the plea?
A: “We feel completely vindicated with the plea agreement that was reached today. It’s vindication for not only (investigator) Larry Meyer and his investigation but for our department, also. I think it will demonstrate to the public that there were in fact victims here and (they were) not the people who were working at Star Packaging.
Adams: He’s not completely vindicated; he just wants to crow that he is. Coan’s actions led to family hardship, and that makes those who were treated too harshly, leading to their deportation, victims, too.
By the way, why is Coan’s speech always a torrent of adverbs? He’s never just right, or vindicated, or correct, in his own mind. He’s always completely, totally, entirely, so. It’s an adolescent’s way of speaking. Most things in life, as seen by mature men, are not so clear-cut.
Nonetheless, Coan commonly speaks, and writes, in this overly-certain way. Hard to say if he’s just desperate to be right about everything, desperate not to appear wrong about anything, or just convinced that if he speaks categorically, no one will object.
Petrie’s plea does not address whether (1) the initial motivation was investigating Petrie or intimidating Mexicans, or both, (2) and does not address — does not express any sympathy — for any consequences of immigration enforcement as a result of a Whitewater Police Department telephone call. Is Coan too insecure to acknowledge that his actions caused hardship, or too arrogant, or too inflexible? Hard to say.
I find it nearly impossible, however, that a mature and educated man would have any confidence in someone like him.
Q: For all the effort put into this case, and the aftermath that followed, was the investigation worth it?
A: For the people whose identities and Social Security numbers were falsely used, it was. It sends a message that it is a crime and hopefully it will act as a deterrent for people who are trying to do that. From that standpoint, it was worth it.
Adams: Notice how Coan says nothing about deportations, etc. You say it was worth it for a few, but it was bad for the community, and you’re too rigid to acknowledge that.
Q: Will Whitewater police investigate employers in similar cases in the future?
A: We’re not actively investigating anybody else. It’s not a situation where we were out actively seeking these crimes. When it’s brought to our attention, we do have an obligation to investigate. We will do these on a case-by-case basis.
In the case of Mr. Petrie, we did it. There were warnings given (to him) in the past. There was ample opportunity for Mr. Petrie to cease what was going on there.
With regard to other businesses, other companies, other cases that might come to our attention, we will treat each on a case-by-case basis. I can’t make any broad or sweeping comment as to what we would do other than to remind people that it is a crime.
Adams: If Coan were a tech leader, this technique would be called FUD (spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt). He holds out the possibility that he might do all of this again, and again, at his discretion. For a while, his technique will keep Mexican families on edge, and might lead some to relocate rather than stay in a state of anxiety. There are some people in this town who would welcome a limit on Mexican families here, or a departure of some, and Coan’s effort to appear strong will please those people. At some point, without further raids on other businesses, the anxiety will lessen. Coan will have to ask himself — should I raid another businesses, on spurious identity theft grounds, to keep the anxiety level high? Hard to say — he’s a weak leader, but he’ll do what the town elites — middle and working class –want. If they’ll back him, he’ll raid again.
He won’t investigate across the board, however, because some businesses will always be off limits (regardless of the immigration status of the workforce). Petrie didn’t have clout within the city, in the way it counts here.
Q: Did you learn anything in hindsight about how the case was handled?
A: In retrospect, we did what we felt was right at the time. I’m not going to say that we would do it one way or another the next time.
All situations are different and have different factors, different variables. But we treat matters on a case-by-case basis. I can’t predict what the future might hold in other operations we might be called upon to assist in.
Adams: Nothing, not a single admission that it might have been handled better. Nothing. The rigidity of weakness.
Q: What caused the negative view of the Whitewater Police Department after the raid at Star Packaging?
A: What transpired is a microcosm of what’s taking place elsewhere in the country. We were investigating identity theft. ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), their responsibility is that of illegal immigration. It got inter-wound and I think people viewed us as the agency that was going after illegal immigrants in the case. That was not our responsibility. That was the responsibility of ICE. Ours was to focus on identity theft, which we did.
Q: Did the investigation cause the social or economic hardship on the community because the business has virtually closed, leaving dozens without jobs?
A: We can’t forecast the social or economic consequences of something like this that we undertake. There was a crime committed. We investigate crime. The district attorney’s office prosecutes the crime. The consequences from all of this are not our responsibility. It is those who commit crime.
Mr. Petrie admitted he committed crimes. There was a plea agreement to that effect. It’s not the police department or the city’s responsibility… I would put it upon those who have committed, in one way or another, illegal activity.
Adams: Coan’s force exercises police discretion every day, in what to undertake or not, but then he turns around and disclaims responsibility for the consequences of his actions. He either pawns the blame on the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Agency (whom his own officer brought into the case), or denies that any consequences are his.
Adams: Those are his words: the consequences of all of this are not our responsibility. All of this.
By this line of reasoning, any action Coan takes to fight crime is legitimate, and he is incapable of a disproportionate response. As long as it was a crime, all consequences belong to the alleged criminal.
No normal person believes this, and Coan would not himself contend that police officers could beat a person, for example, for jaywalking. But listen to how he speaks, and replies — they’re never consequences he has to consider.
That’s just amoral hand-washing. Coan should always be accountable for the consequences of a disproportionate response in a criminal investigation, even if he insists he would not be. He has the advantage, however, of running a department in a city with a lapdog Police and Fire Commission.
Q: What will people think now that there has been a plea?
A: Hopefully there will be an understanding. They’ll see the details of this. They’ll have an understanding of those who were victimized as a result of this and that there were in fact crimes committed. I hope people take a different view of this whole issue and whole case and know it’s not an issue of racial profiling from our standpoint.
Q: Will everyone see it that way?
A: I think there are some in the community who are still using this for whatever personal or political gain. I can only tell you that from our standpoint, we continue to provide, I believe, the utmost professional police service to all members of our community regardless of their immigration status. When someone calls the Whitewater Police Department, we respond and we do everything we can to help the person regardless of their race, gender, age or immigration status.
Adams: Political gain? Who is he talking about? Those who hold office in this city — and expect all the honor that comes with official rank — will not take a firm stand against Coan. Either they support him, or they are unwilling to criticize because to do so might make them seem weak on crime. It says something about how troubled our community is that he speaks and writes unchallenged by some — in office — who know better. As I wrote of Coan before, he’s a “Mynah bird of excuses, rationalizations, and self-praise, of himself, and the Whitewater police.”
Coan has no political opponents. Senators, presidents, and the jackass who runs Zimbabwe have political opponents. Coan doesn’t have political critics. He flatters himself to think so. I might be critical of Coan because he’s a mediocre manager. Alternatively, I might be critical of Coan because what he says is impossible to believe. Perhaps I might doubt him because he advocates a consequence-free authority for his force. Those are not political objections, so to speak — they’re simple expectations to hold Coan to a normal ethical standard.
Q: How do you feel about the plea agreement and that prison time will not be sought?
A: Our job is to enforce the law. As far as the court aspect of things, the trial, the sentence, that’s the responsibility of the courts. It’s up to them to decide on an appropriate sentence in this matter. We are not advocating for any jail time. That is up to the DA’s office and for the courts to decide.
We hope the strong message that it sends to (Petrie) is that this is against the law and that it’s unacceptable.
Adams: All this, for probation. That’s it — jail, deportation, a business ruined, so Coan could make a point. Are you kidding? He speaks like a little god, not a humble public servant. If there’s anyone foolish enough to trust Coan’s moral judgment, then those trusting people deserve the damage he does. For us, however, who wouldn’t trust or rely on his faulty judgment, and excuse-making, and dissembling anymore than we would trust a confidence man, we deserve better.
Thanks much to so many new readers, and to those who were correspondents, this past month. This humble site started in May, and it has had solid growth again over the last month.
I will try to include more photographs and pictures, along with my posts, to make the site more visually appealing.
I will also continue with a “Coming Attractions” post at the beginning of the week, so that readers will know what’s on deck for the week ahead. Additional, breaking-story posts can be added to the lineup as events suggest.
As always, for those who have written and thanked me for publishing an independent point of view for Whitewater, the pleasure is mine.
As readers know, I posted yesterday an email from Bill Bowen, owner of the Double Dip Deli, in which he criticized two of my posts that made mention of public art in Whitewater. Yesterday, I printed his letter in full, and today I’ll respond. I gave him the benefit of being able to tell his friends and patrons that he was the one who gave me a piece of his mind. (Including his name may slake his desire for notice, and it doesn’t bother me, so I identified him.)
Below, I reproduce Mr. Bowen’s remarks in black, and my replies in blue, for easy distinction.
BB: Dear Mr. Adams,
I fail to understand how you can be for a “Free Whitewater” and yet be so cynical and belittling.
JA: Part of standing for a Free Whitewater means exercising my free speech rights. Your belittling is my artistic criticism. It’s not a free city, state, or republic if I cannot comment merely because someone else might be offended. That’s the problem with your analysis. If you feel someone is belittled, presumably, I’m supposed to stop writing, or I’m supposed to write only what does not offend you, your customers, etc. I will write freely, and I will not stop because someone might be offended. If writers stopped writing because someone might be offended, no one would write.
That’s a challenge in our small town: group-think requires people to be positive, sweep criticism under the rug, and defend whatever project or program the city or some civic group proposes. Why? What if they’re foolish, or empty, or ineffective ideas? They can’t all be great ideas, unless everyone behind every project is a visionary. I think people are sometimes making mistakes, and I’ll write that I think they’re sometimes making mistakes.
No one can say that this website is from one of the lemmings of Whitewater — those who follow along because they think that’s what they’re supposed to do.
I’m not cynical — literally, distrustful of human sincerity — about public life; I’m skeptical — literally, not easily convinced, having doubts or reservations. (About private life and faith I have no such doubts or reservations.)
BB: For example, in the following two excerpts, I am astounded that you would disparage the efforts of a group of people who want nothing more than to be proud of and enjoy their community. They have worked very hard on these public art projects, some tirelessly, and have given a part of themselves to the community. Yet you state that they are “empty municipal gestures”
First excerpt: Our economic development is less about a free market economy than about any number of empty municipal gestures. We could hang birdhouses, or painted chairs and wooden fish, from our lampposts forever and still businesses would close and go elsewhere.
JA: But, sadly, I’m right — we do hang these projects on lampposts, and stores still close. That was the point of my Vacant Whitewater post. Perhaps your point is that more stores would close if people did not expend their time painting wooden fish and chairs and hanging them on lampposts. Even so, is this the best use of our efforts? There is something that we could do that would be more effective? If we’re down to the fish-and-chair-and birdhouse plan to save the economy, we’re cooked. That was the point of the James Lileks post to which I linked. These projects are, as he noted, often matters of municipal desperation. (More about the municipal connection in a bit.) It should not be astounding, to an astute businessman, that someone might question whether any given effort is the best use of time and resources.
I am not sure if you’re truly astounded, or if it’s just a pose. If it’s a pose, then at least I see the practicality of it: you may gain more patrons, admirers, and profits. If you are truly astounded, then you are too easily shocked or surprised.
BB: Second excerpt: Q: Why do you want to embarrass/criticize the town? A: Reform and growth begin with honesty, not whitewash and Potemkin villages. We have some great possibilities before us, but some of our fellow residents have been treated with outrageous cruelty and official indifference, lies, and excuses. All the birdhouses hanging from lampposts will not undo the damage that, for example, our police force has recently inflicted on hardworking people. I am even more surprised that as a self professed expert on our city, you apparently don’t understand the difference between a “municipal gesture” and the commitment this group of individuals has shown toward making our city just a little bit nicer place to live. Creativity and commitment is something to be regarded and respected. It can provide innovative solutions to real problems. It certainly does not deserve the irreverence you have shown it.
JA: Where to begin? First, in my post, it’s clear that I refer to the deportation of industrious Mexican workers. (I know that Coan will caw endlessly that the federal government actually deported them, or jailed them, but that’s just his futile exercise in hand-washing.) You make no mention of them at all, except when citing my remarks.
What nonsense to say that I am a “self professed expert.” That’s completely false — nowhere have I declared myself an expert. Nowhere. Your rhetoric runs ahead of your argument. It’s a wasted line, as it’s so easily refuted.
I have been very clear that I am a common man, citizen, resident, and property owner, who is skeptical of much of what goes on around here. You ask: Who am I to criticize others? I am a common man, a citizen, resident, and property owner, who is skeptical of much of what goes on around here — that’s who I am to criticize. It’s a free society where anyone has a right to criticize. My rights are not limited by what others decide is offensive. I have every right to offer my opinions, and publish them, even if it offends a few artists and their champion.
BB: These projects were created not only by accomplished artists, but also by everyday individuals and some even as family projects. Who are you to belittle them? Even if this was not your original intention, the connotation is certainly there. Talk about cruelty.
JA: “Talk about cruelty.” When I read that line, I thought the entire message might be a joke, or spoof.
Review your comparison: people were removed from this community, and jailed, and deported, you think mere words of criticism of a few bird-house builders is similarly cruel? That’s a false moral equivalence and a bankrupt comparison. Do you really think that’s the same? If you do, your position is not morally serious; if you don’t think it’s the same, then your position amounts to no more than a grandstanding pose, or sloppy rhetoric.
Why should all creativity be embraced? Creativity can lead to good, mediocre, or empty ends. I can and will make the distinction. In the case of the fish/chair/birdhouse effort, I believe it’s an empty effort that leads me to think the work amounts to less than meets the eye. They’re all created — that its, acts of creativity — but why should I admire them all just because someone made them? What if I think some of them are unattractive, or without merit? By your reasoning, I would have to praise all art simply because someone created it. (By the way, I would not revere art, or other human things; I will save reverence for higher things, not the work of someone who painted a wooden chair and put it on a lamppost.)
Suppose I painted a picture, and placed it on display. Some people would praise it, some would be indifferent, and some would say it was ugly. I would hope that if I displayed something publicly, I would have the maturity to accept diverse opinions, including critical ones, without hyper-sensitively decrying negative reviews as cruelty. If the people you defend are true artists, then they should be mature enough to handle, and shrug off, the comments of someone who writes that their efforts are empty. Are all these artists of Whitewater made of sugar, that they melt after a few words, or falsely equate those few words with the hardship of deportation?
BB: The only part of the entire project that could be considered a “municipal gesture” would be 1) the fact that permission was granted to do these projects and 2) the city crews, which I have read you don’t have any respect for either, assisted in securing the works to the lamp posts. By the way, you should try some of the jobs they do on a daily basis.
JA: Two quick replies. First, if you need city permission, it’s not a truly private effort. I don’t need the city’s permission to hang a painting in my house, but if I did the same on a genuine City of Whitewater lamppost without asking permission, some Whitewater police officer not otherwise engaged in a keeping our city safe from marauding immigrants would ask me to take it down.
Second, about some of those city workers: I did not know the owner of the Double Dip Deli to be a champion of the working class. By the way, as you surely know, I was referring only to those city workers who were committed to a small town orthodoxy, not all workers. Fortunately, not everyone around here shares that orthodoxy. Those who work at public expense have it far easier that people who work difficult private jobs in factories, shipyards, etc. That includes those now deported Mexicans who were working in private industry, until recently. Those who get salaries, benefits, etc. at public expense — with the tax dollars of those who work laboriously in private industry — have more stability than those who face the vicissitudes of the private market. A lamprey might contend that it does hard work by feeding parasitically, but I would think that it’s not as hard as being the larger fish from which the lamprey drains blood.
BB: I will also tell you that these types of projects have helped me stay in business in Whitewater. Aside from the additional foot traffic downtown, which translates to additional sales, it sometimes is just to nice know that people are willing to try, which helps me hang in there and try a little harder.
JA: So which is it: is your support of a matter of defending the artistic community, or making money? If it’s money, then the motivation that you’re defending the artistic community from my supposed cruelty is less altruistic and more self-interested. If it’s money, then I will leave it up to you if it’s the best value for your money, knowing that it may not be the best expenditure of effort for the entire city — that is, it may not accomplish as much as you think.
I want to be helpful; I can suggest a way to increase cooperation between the City of Whitewater and the artists that you champion. Next year, I suggest that private citizens paint and display painted wooden shovels on the city’s lampposts. The artists can paint them, and decorate them wherever their creativity — to be revered, by your account — leads them. The city will get something out of it, too. From this effort will come a new motto for Whitewater’s city government:
Whitewater City Government — No One Shovels It Like We Do.™
BB: I doubt you will actually post this publicly, but if you do I would very much appreciate 1) you do include my name, I am proud of my viewpoints and welcome direct discourse on differing opinions and 2) post it's entirety, paraphrases can often be misleading. I expect though that the name will be withheld because "e;Our policy is…blah, blah"e; or "It is not our mission to…blah, blah, blah" etc, etc. more >>
I received a message from Bill Bowen, of the Double Dip Deli. You’ll see that he wonders if I will post his full message, attributed to him. Of course I will, thereby giving his friends, patrons, etc., the opportunity to know that he spoke his mind, as it were. (What he writes would mean no more or less if he wrote without attribution, but if he wants the notice, so be it.)
I will post his full message now, and post my reply tomorrow, Wednesday, morning. Mr. Bowen will not be able to say that his message wasn’t published in full.
Dear Mr. Adams,
I fail to understand how you can be for a “Free Whitewater” and yet be so cynical and belittling.
For example, in the following two excerpts, I am astounded that you would disparage the efforts of a group of people who want nothing more than to be proud of and enjoy their community. They have worked very hard on these public art projects, some tirelessly, and have given a part of themselves to the community. Yet you state that they are “empty municipal gestures”.
First excerpt:
“Our economic development is less about a free market economy than about any number of empty municipal gestures. We could hang birdhouses, or painted chairs and wooden fish, from our lampposts forever and still businesses would close and go elsewhere.”
Second excerpt:
Q: Why do you want to embarrass/criticize the town?
A: Reform and growth begin with honesty, not whitewash and Potemkin villages. We have some great possibilities before us, but some of our fellow residents have been treated with outrageous cruelty and official indifference, lies, and excuses. All the birdhouses hanging from lampposts will not undo the damage that, for example, our police force has recently inflicted on hardworking people.
I am even more surprised that as a self professed expert on our city, you apparently don’t understand the difference between a “municipal gesture” and the commitment this group of individuals has shown toward making our city just a little bit nicer place to live. Creativity and commitment is something to be regarded and respected. It can provide innovative solutions to real problems. It certainly does not deserve the irreverence you have shown it.
These projects were created not only by accomplished artists, but also by everyday individuals and some even as family projects. Who are you to belittle them? Even if this was not your original intention, the connotation is certainly there. Talk about cruelty.
The only part of the entire project that could be considered a “municipal gesture” would be 1) the fact that permission was granted to do these projects and 2) the city crews, which I have read you don’t have any respect for either, assisted in securing the works to the lamp posts. By the way, you should try some of the jobs they do on a daily basis.
I will also tell you that these types of projects have helped me stay in business in Whitewater. Aside from the additional foot traffic downtown, which translates to additional sales, it sometimes is just to nice know that people are willing to try, which helps me hang in there and try a little harder.
I doubt you will actually post this publicly, but if you do I would very much appreciate 1) you do include my name, I am proud of my viewpoints and welcome direct discourse on differing opinions and 2) post it’s entirety, paraphrases can often be misleading. I expect though that the name will be withheld because “Our policy is…blah, blah” or “It is not our mission to…blah, blah, blah” etc, etc.
Speaking honestly,
Bill Bowen
The Double Dip Deli
Wednesday: Adams replies.
Suppose Steve Spear is re-appointed municipal judge, or wins election in April 2008. What will our town do? The normal residents of Whitewater will need some way to reassure themselves that no untoward conduct will take place in the municipal judge’s chambers, or in open court.
Let me offer a few suggestions.
1. The Technological Solution. Although I am opposed to large public works programs, in light of the former judge’s possible return to office, I believe that we should make an exception. I propose that Whitewater undertake a full-scale scientific project aimed at developing a device that can detect bodily fluids in a courtroom, judge’s chambers, cloakrooms, and nearby broom closets. We can defend our community, and advance scientific accomplishment, at the same time. To encourage federal and state matching funds, we could give the device a catchy name. “Bio-fluid-ometer XL” or “Ejac-u-Detectinator 2100” are possibilities.
2. The America’s Pastime Solution. City Council could require that any municipal judge wear baseball mitts on both hands while at work.
3. The Transparency Solution. City Council could require that any municipal judge use a clear plastic shower curtain as a judicial robe, rather than a traditional — and opaque — black robe.
Rest assured — we can meet this challenge.
I received a second message recently about Steve Spear, from a reader who identified himself as “Thomas Jefferson.” (I like the name, by the way.)
Thomas Jefferson relates that he’s learned that some residents and citizens of Whitewater may have sent a letter to the Common Council on behalf of Steve Spear’s re-appointment. (The Common Council will appoint a municipal judge who’ll serve until a judge is elected in April 2008.)
That’s right — Spear just resigned in disgrace, but some people want him back. Already.
A reminder is in order, again. Here’s some of the the conduct that led to Spear’s resignation, as recounted in The Week:
A search warrant conducted at Spear’s former law office at the Soffa and Devitt firm, 332 W. Whitewater St., Whitewater, uncovered semen samples from his keyboard, computer, desk, chair and carpet.
Spear is no longer with the firm.
Yet, some among us want him back! They may feel that he’s an astute judge, or a family man, or perhaps someone who has a history of working with youth.
Are you kidding? What’s wrong with some of you? If there was ever any doubt that our city is troubled, with people confused, obstinate, perverse, or ethically-challenged, set that doubt aside: Someone thinks Spear’s a paragon of virtue.
I write because no one else publishes what so many know, but do not read — that this is a patently troubled town. If you’re a city official, or a dim-witted member of Whitewater’s town-bred elite, and you think that this blog is too critical, etc., think again. You’ve made a mess of this town, and as a citizen, resident, and property owner, I will comment as I have a right to do.
Thanks, Mr. Jefferson.
I’ve received two messages recently about former municipal judge, and perpetual vulgarian, Steven Spear. The first is from a member of the Common Council. I’ll post the message in full, with my reply thereafter. (The Council member refers to my post entitled, “Spear, Coan, and Brunner.”)
From a member of the Common Council:
Dear “Mr. Adams”,
I just read over your article about former municipal judge Steve Spear. I will not comment on my personal opinions on the matter, but I noticed a somewhat large inaccuracy. Although the Whitewater Police Department handled the initial complaint and investigation, it was eventually handed off to the Kenosha County District Attorney’s office, and you do not even mention this in your article. I strongly recommend that you look into this as soon as possible for specific details.
Adams replies:
You’ve found no inaccuracy. My post was directed plainly at the disloyalty that Chief Coan showed to his own officers’ work gathering evidence against Spear. Their collection of evidence was the key development in this case. Spear was not charged until the state crime lab analyzed on the ‘biological material’ collected, and after consideration of the victim’s statements. That human biological material, by the way, was reportedly semen samples found in Spear’s (then) law office. The Whitewater Police played a role in that investigation for evidence, including taking testimony from Spear’s victim. Here’s how The Week reported on Spear’s plea:
It appeared Spear was masturbating under his desk, the woman told police. Spear told her he masturbates in his office every day, according to the complaint.
The woman left the office and Spear later called her to apologize, according to the complaint.
A search warrant conducted at Spear’s former law office at the Soffa and Devitt firm, 332 W. Whitewater St., Whitewater, uncovered semen samples from his keyboard, computer, desk, chair and carpet.
Spear is no longer with the firm.
Coan’s officers were part of the investigation, and by thanking Spear, Coan undermined the efforts and integrity of his own force. Spear would still be in office had he not been investigated as he was, no thanks to Jim Coan’s praise of the worst municipal judge in the history of this small town. By mentioning thanks for Spear’s role as judge during the Police Day ceremony in May, Coan disgraced himself.
Omitting the subsequent prosecutorial work of the Kenosha County District Attorney’s Office is not –as you contend — an inaccuracy. Rather, that prosecutorial role was immaterial to my point: that Coan’s so ethically and morally deficient that he would actually bother to thank Spear despite the efforts of Coan’s own force, or frankly, the clear evidence however collected.
Hoping to find inaccuracies in my post is not enough; you’ll have to try harder actually to find one.
By the way, why won’t you take a position on Spear? You hold public office, with all the force and authority that role provides. Members of other legislative bodies criticize judicial officials all the time. Even now that he’s pled, you can’t take a position? Say something, for goodness’ sake. It’s hard — and simultaneously risible — to see so many people who want the authority of public office here in Whitewater, but are silent on even the most egregious acts and disgusting conduct.
We have a busy week ahead of us, with following topics on deck:
Readers know that I’ve written frequently about the Star Packaging raid. The owner of Star Packaging, Alan Petrie (to whom I have no connection) faces multiple counts of supposed conspiracy to commit ‘identity theft’ for hiring Mexican workers. As I have written before, in my post entitled The Identity Theft Excuse, Petrie and the Mexican workers did not commit anything remotely like conventional identity theft. Police investigator Larry Meyer was looking for Mexican workers, not people committing identity theft.
Meyer is a defendant in a federal civil suit accusing him of harassing another business owner on the basis of that owner’s Mexican workforce, and of destroying evidence (as detailed in an affidavit from a former Walworth County Assistant District Attorney).
There’s more than one way to handle the Star Packaging raid — (1) admit that it was racially motivated, and accept the resignations of those who participated or lied about it, or (2) do everything you can to keep defending the supposed integrity of the raid, and those who initiated and approved it. Coan, the now-retied Meyer, and the Walworth County District Attorney’s office will defend that raid to the bitter end. They will admit no errors, no mistakes, no bias.
Coan is perfect for his role — he is, as I have described him,
not speaking to persuade the whole town, or even a large part of it; his words are reassurance for a small, mostly town-bred, elite. They want — and expect — that he will never yield or admit fault on any significant matter. Second, his simple, ceaseless defense of the Whitewater force has the consequence of dissuading common, thoughtful residents from the hope of correcting the problems within the force, and of making it truly professional. Finally, Coan may believe — perhaps correctly, too — that if he repeats the same contentions long enough, others will believe them….Coan is a Mynah bird of excuses, rationalizations, and self-praise, of himself, and the Whitewater police.
The inflexibility of Coan, the Whitewater Police, and their defenders in Elkhorn is dishonest, and child-like in its inflexibility. It has worked for them for years, however, and they hope that it will save them now, too.
