Good morning.

Sunday in Whitewater will be sunny with a high of 55. Sunrise is 7:17 and sunset 6:00 PM for 10h 43m 34s of daytime. The moon is a waxing gibbous with 54.9% of its visible disk illuminated.

  On this day in 1746, the College of New Jersey (later renamed Princeton University) receives its charter.

Consider the following scenario:

A robber walks into a bank and presents a note to the teller. The note reads GIVE ALL YOUR MONEY. The teller activates a silent alarm, and the police arrive. Noticing the approaching officers, the robber pulls an eraser from his pocket, and makes a quick alteration to the note that he gave the teller.

The police question the robber and the teller describes the attempted robbery. The robber denies everything and tells the officers that the note he gave to the teller will prove his innocence. An officer looks at the altered note, and finds that following the erasure the note now reads GIVE ALL.

“See!” the robber explains. “It says right there: GIVE ALL! I was simply being motivational, and trying to encourage the teller to do her best work today!” 

The police arrest the robber. 

No reasonable person would believe the claim that erasing words erases intentions or prior actions.

In the same way, after Councilman Jim Allen offered 5 pretexts in 6 minutes for hiring a lawyer, and after he falsely denied requesting termination as part of an agenda item, no sensible person would believe that merely removing the words from an agenda item would remove the intentions behind them. See Allen’s Childish Pretexts and Councilman Allen’s False Denial. That is, however, what Councilman David Stone requested to do at the 10.3.2023 session of the Whitewater Common Council. 

Two hours into that session, Stone proposed that 

I would like to make an amendment as the item 25, remove the word called termination and replaced with personnel. So it reads personnel matters.

See Video @ 2:02:19. 

And poof! The word termination is gone. The intention, however, cannot be so easily removed. 

A reminder: Whitewater deserves better from its common council majority; this city is better than its council majority. Whitewater deserves better from its community development authority’s majority; this city is better than that authority’s majority.

 Good morning.

Updated, afternoon of 10.21.23 as noted below — 

Saturday in Whitewater will be partly cloudy with a high of 59. Sunrise is 7:16 and sunset 6:02 PM for 10h 46m 18s of daytime. The moon is a waxing crescent with 43.5% of its visible disk illuminated.

  On this day in 1805, a British fleet led by Lord Nelson defeats a combined French and Spanish fleet under Admiral Villeneuve in the Battle of Trafalgar.

On the agenda of the October 3rd Whitewater Common Council session, Item 25 was listed as “Retaining an outside law firm to advise the common council on employee discipline and termination matters – Allen/Attorney.” Longtime politician and councilmember Jim Allen denied that he had requested an agenda item that included the word termination.

Allen’s denial was false, and demonstrably so. As one can plainly see below, either Allen lied (spoke falsely and knowingly so) or he spoke merely falsely (suggesting he cannot recall what he emails in an official capacity from one month to the next). 

Embedded immediately below is a recording of the council session, and a transcript of Allen’s false claim.

Council President Allen 1:52:48

All right. We’ll be back in session then. Let’s move on. Rounding the

corner here. Retaining an outside law firm to advise council on employee

discipline. And uh I have here what I gave personally to [aside] John you’re

rolling your eyes what’s going? To Karri at a meeting with she and John and

said for employee [emphasis] discipline. It didn’t say termination. So I

don’t know how termination got put on the agenda. But there it is.

City Clerk Anderberg 1:53:19

From your email.

Council President Allen 1:53:20

This is right here.

City Manager Weidl 1:53:21

You sent a follow up email to both myself and Karri stating that you

disagreed with our opinion that it was a closed session item and you prefer

it to be an open session and provided new language which included

termination.

Council President Allen 1:53:31

I did not include new language.

City Manager Weidl 1:53:33

We have the email.

Council President Allen 1:53:35

Okay, I’d like to see. Thank you. I didn’t provide new language.

See Transcript and Video.

Allen did, in fact, propose language specifically requesting the use of the word termination, exactly as Item 25 appeared on the agenda:

From: James Allen <JAllen@whitewater-wi.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 1:58:53 PM
To: Karri Anderberg <kanderberg@whitewater-wi.gov>; John Weidl <jweidl@whitewater-wi.gov>
Subject: Emergency request for agenda

Hi Karri, I have an emergency request for an agenda item for next week. It shouldn’t involve any extra work by any city staff. Let me knitter [sic] if you can accommodate us please and thank you.

C-?: CLOSED SESSION. Adjourn to closed session, TO RECONVENE, pursuant to Chapter 19.85(1)(c) “Considering employment, promotion, compensation or performance evaluation data of any public employee over which the governmental body has jurisdiction or exercises responsibility” ” and 19.85(1)(e) “Deliberating or negotiating the purchasing of public properties, the investing of public funds, or conducting other specified public business, whenever competitive or bargaining reasons require a closed session.” Item to be discussed: (1) Discussion of an authorize retainer amount and hourly rate for the common council to retain an outside law firm to advise the common council on employee discipline and termination matters.

C-?: Reconvene into open session

C-?: Possible action on retaining an outside law firm to advise the common council on employee discipline and termination matters.

Emphasis added above, screenshot below.

Updated with a second public records example:

From: James Allen <JAllen@whitewater-wi.gov>
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 2:37:48 PM
To: Karri Anderberg <kanderberg@whitewater-wi.gov>; John Weidl <jweidl@whitewater-wi.gov>
Cc: JonathanMcDonell <jm@hmattys.com>
Subject: additional agenda item request

John and Karri,

I believe that this request meets the requirements for closed session but since you disagree please add it to the end of the agenda in open session.
Thank you,
Jim                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

CLOSED SESSION. Adjourn to closed session, TO RECONVENE, pursuant to Chapter 19.85(1)(c) “Considering employment, promotion, compensation or performance evaluation data of any public employee over which the governmental body has jurisdiction or exercises responsibility” ” and 19.85(1)(e) “Deliberating or negotiating the purchasing of public properties, the investing of public funds, or conducting other specified public business, whenever competitive or bargaining reasons require a closed session.” Item to be discussed: (1) Discussion of an authorize retainer amount and hourly rate for the common council to retain an outside law firm to advise the common council on employee discipline and termination matters.

Emphasis added above, screenshot below.

Allen asked (at least) twice for language including the word termination. 

(One would have expected that a long-in-the-tooth councilman would understand that a resident might by right under Wisconsin law seek public records in this matter, but then some of these men are shortsighted.)

And look, and look — these matters are not ones simply between different members of the government. They have become matters of residents‘ principles and values. There has never been a time, and there never will be, when this libertarian blogger will represent the government. Never. (Government has enough people to play that role.)

A few special interests in this town have now opened a conflict that is, fundamentally, between residents.

What is this conflict about? This — For a year, Whitewater’s special interests, using their operatives and stooges, have embarked on a campaign to ensure that they continue to control economic development in Whitewater. They view a public institution like the Whitewater Community Development Authority as their private property and will not accept the direction of the current city administration to establish professional, public development as other communities do. A few landlords and bankers in Whitewater will not accept a city that is not under their thumb. That’s what this conflict is about. All the rest is pretext and lies. 

This conflict will not, now, end with a change of personnel. It will continue long after even a particular change of that sort. As with the false claims of these men, so it will be a false hope for them that there will be acquiescence. 

A reminder: Whitewater deserves better from its common council majority; this city is better than its council majority. Whitewater deserves better from its community development authority’s majority; this city is better than that authority’s majority.

 Good morning.

Friday in Whitewater will be cloudy with a high of 56. Sunrise is 7:14 and sunset 6:04 PM for 10h 49m 03s of daytime. The moon is a waxing crescent with 32.8% of its visible disk illuminated.

  On this day in 1803, the United States Senate ratifies the Louisiana Purchase.

On October 17th, four members of the Whitewater Common Council (Allen, Gerber, Hicks, and Stone) voted to give Councilmember Jim Allen the sole authority to bring an offering of lawyers before the council. 

The August 15th meeting of the Whitewater Common Council, however, reveals the dodginess of Allen’s representations and claims to the community.

Look at the claims Allen makes at the 8.15.23 council meeting about the need for a third attorney, and in the space of 6 minutes he offers 5 justifications:

Transcript and Video.

1. At 0:28 on the video, he says “All right, I’ll second it” to this motion: “I move to authorize the council to retain a separate attorney for common council’s use in regard to personnel matters or employees that council oversees.”

2. Fewer than three minutes later, at 2:57, Allen says “We need separate representation when doing John’s performance evaluation.”

3. At 5:48, Allen then declares representation will be “Only as needed.”

4. At 5:52, Allen then declares “No. We don’t have a use for it right now, I don’t believe.” (If it’s “only as needed,” or he felt the council didn’t “have a use for it right now, I don’t believe,” then why did Allen make the clear declaration only two minutes earlier that there was a specific and concrete purpose for the attorney?)

5. Then at 6:10, Allen says he’s entitled to hire another lawyer because “It’s just discretion.” (If that should be true, and hiring a lawyer doesn’t require a specific purpose, then Allen must believe that he can say and do anything.)

Allen’s 8.15.23 claims look like a child’s pretexts, the way young children will offer any number of consecutive justifications for whatever they say or do. In those cases, however, an adult guides the child to a more direct way of speaking and behaving.

And yet, and yet, this is the councilmember in whom Gerber, Hicks, and Stone placed authority for compiling an offering of lawyers on 10.17.23. 

A reminder: Whitewater deserves better from its common council majority; this city is better than its council majority. Whitewater deserves better from its community development authority’s majority; this city is better than that authority’s majority.