There’s a view – almost a wish – that in a small town, life will prove less regulated, and the only regulations the community issues are the most important, truly concerning health and safety.
Sometimes, after paying for another permit, or sitting in a traffic jam caused by another urban plan gone awry, someone in Los Angeles must think: there must be someplace simpler than this.
There is, of course, just not as simple and reasonable as one might hope.
We live in a highly regulated rural town, where every merchant’s sign is scrutinized, and where one can read an increasingly long list of all the activities the city prohibits or restricts – not to do this, that, or the other thing.
Every so often, though, one comes across a story about a real risk, and sees the difference between zealous enforcement of minor matters and real concerns for safety.
Over at our campus newspaper, the Royal Purple, there’s a story entitled, No law bans sexual offenders from living in residence halls
The story reports that a convicted offender lived in one of the residence halls in 2006:
“In a recent Royal Purple article involving sexual offenders living near UW-Whitewater, it was reported that a former residence hall tenant had multiple convictions of sexual assault of a child.
Benjamin Nowak, 31, who lived in Wells West in 2006 was convicted of second-degree sexual assault of a child Oct. 16, 1997, in Waukesha County. Nowak was also convicted April 24, 2000 of a class A misdemeanor for having sex with a child age 16 or older in Waukesha County.
….Local municipalities can pass their own ordinances, Whitewater has not passed any ordinances restricting residency.”
A few paragraphs later, the story concludes with mention of unmet student concerns:
“Despite safety concerns of students living in the residence hall, no action was taken, according to the students….
In order for a student with a history of sexual convictions to live in university residence halls offenders are required to go through their probation officer to setup housing accommodations, Director of Housing Frank Bartlett said.
Although not at his present position in 2006 Kiederlen said he was aware of instances of harassment accusations against Nowak.
“I am aware of the history of the situation, but it is not something I personally dealt with,” Kiederlen said. “My understanding of the situation was many of his actions were harassing in quality and borderline but not necessarily illegal so we ended up not being able to do too much.”
Students who lived in the hall with Nowak say issues of student interaction with Nowak were documented and should make the university and state responsible for tightening restrictions to ensure student safety.”
The story raises a few questions:
1. What is, more fully, the process for a sex offender to obtain campus housing? What must he and his probation officer show or do? The story describes what the offender and probation officer do – set up housing – but what does that require, and what evaluation criteria – if any – are used?
2. In 2006, did any administrator or did university legal counsel assess the risk from Nowak’s residency? There were apparently and reportedly complaints of harassment – who received and processed them?
3. Has any administrator or university legal counsel ever assessed a similar risk?
4. At any occasion, has any administrator or has university legal counsel ever prepared an opinion on actions the university might take? What did they conclude? (One assumes – quite accurately, I’m sure – that this is a decision that the administration would make.)
5. What does University Chancellor Richard Telfer think? Not about what happened then, but what should be the policy of the university now? Why not ask him for his opinion, as he must have an office, and a phone?
6. Finally, in all the regulations over signs, parking, outdoor caf?s, is this not a greater risk – and thus greater concern? Managing the city is a poor substitute for genuine governance. The grandiose claims of management are of principal advantage only to incumbent politicians and career bureaucrats.
Real risk will not be found from a sign that’s too large, a website with independent commentary, or a rule for every small matter.