by Tony Palmeri
July 13, 2001
Sometimes the silence of elected officials speaks much louder than their public statements. Some politicians remain silent about a public issue simply because they do not feel well enough informed to take a stand. Others remain silent because there is no citizen pressure being placed on them to speak out; thus the politician engages in a game of "if they don't ask, I'm not telling."
A more troubling reason why politicians choose to silence themselves is this: if they say nothing about a difficult issue, the issue might just disappear. At the federal level, only the dogged persistence of US Senators Russ Feingold and John McCain has kept the possibility of campaign finance reform alive. For years, Democrats and Republicans have been more than willing to let the issue die through a conspiracy of silence. National health care, ending poverty, and corporate welfare are just 3 more examples of issues in which the silence of an overwhelming majority of elected officials effectively makes positive change impossible. The fact that these issues have not disappeared is a testament to the ability of activist organizations to refuse to be bullied into submission by cowardly political silence.
Regardless of why politicians (or all citizens, for that matter) choose to silence themselves, it is important to keep in mind that in a very real sense their silence is consent for the status quo. If a politician says nothing about the key issues facing his or her community, state, and/or nation, he or she is saying with that silence that things are "okay" the way they are. Those elected officials in Oshkosh who refuse to speak out on the Indian Mascot and nickname issue, for example, are in effect siding with those who support keeping the mascots and nicknames in place. Those Winnebago County elected officials who say nothing about law enforcement abuses in the county, such as those committed by the elite MEG unit, are with their silence saying that those abuses are okay. Those State of Wisconsin officials who remain silent in the face of clear evidece of political corruption inside the state Republican and Democratic caucuses are saying in effect that they are willing to let that corruption continue.
Politicians and all citizens should not be expected to speak out on every issue, of course. However, we as a citizenry ought not tolerate silence when our constitutional freedoms are challenged. If a politician has abused his power in office, silence on the part of his or her colleagues means that they consent to that abuse. During Watergate, Iran/Contra, and the Lewinsky affair, legitimate questions were raised about Nixon's, Reagan's, and Clinton's fitness for office. Because each of those scandals attained international status, politicians were forced to take stands for or against the President in question. Watergate, Iran/Contra, and Lewinsky were not going to disappear through political silence.
Today in Oshkosh, our constitutional liberties have been challenged by the current Mayor, yet we have heard not one comment about his behavior--pro or con--from his six colleagues on the Oshkosh Common Council. How has Mayor Dell'Antonia challenged our constitutional liberties? Last month, the Mayor became aware of Jackson St. resident Harmon Seaver's provocative web site. Disturbed by what he perceived as possibly defamatory comments on the site, the Mayor e-mailed City Attorney Warren Kraft and said that Seaver should be "nailed to the cross" because of his comments. The City Attorney sent an e-mail to Seaver challenging him to attend the next meeting of the Oshkosh Common Council to offer proof of his charges during citizen statements. He also informed Seaver that his site could be potentially libelous and that he should consider seeking legal advice.
As I noted in a previous essay, state statutes do not give the Mayor the power to use the City Attorney in such a manner, nor does the City Attorney have the power to do anything but provide a written legal opinion at the request of city officers. Neither the Mayor nor the City Attorney have the power to intimidate citizens with whom they disagree, even if--as in the case of Seaver, they have produced a web site that the Mayor and/or Attorney find to be obnoxious or inaccurate. On a recent edition of my and Jim Mather's cable program "Commentary," local pundit Dan Rylance said that Dell'Antonia and Kraft's behavior in this matter strikes at the heart of our civil liberties. On the same program, former Mayor Bob Jungwirth called for Dell'Antonia's resignation from the council.
Mayor Dell'Antonia, to his credit, appeared on Commentary this past week and addressed the issue. He did not apologize for his actions nor indicate that he was wrong. Instead, he expressed regret that he gave Seaver's site so much undeserved attention. He also said that the City Attorney needs to attend "remedial e-mail school" (i.e. the only reason we know about Dell'Antonia's "nail him to the cross" comment is because Kraft accidently forwarded Dell'Antonia's e-mail to Seaver). He did say that the City Attorney is not currently pursuing any actions against Seaver related to the web site, but that hardly constitutes an admission of guilt.
Since Dell'Antonia's and Kraft's actions were revealed, two meetings of the Oshkosh Common Council have taken place. Not one member of the Common Council has said anything about those actions. They have made no comments during the Council Member portion of the meetings, nor have they made any statements to the press regarding the Mayor's actions.
How are we to interpret the silence of the Oshkosh Common Council regarding what looks like an abuse of power in office by the Mayor? Do the councilors believe that what Dell'Antonia did was legal and proper? Do they think that it is appropriate for the Mayor to request the City Attorney to "go after" citizens? Are they remaining silent in the hope that this issue will go away?
Citizens of Oshkosh need to know if the elected officials with whom they have entrusted protection of their civil liberties are willing to allow a Mayor to use the City Attorney inappropriately. I believe that the members of the Common Council are obligated to either defend Dell'Antonia's behavior or condemn it. If they remain silent, they are consenting to what took place as proper, meaning that every citizen who writes a controversial letter or produces a provocative web site should fear the wrath of City Hall coming down on them. This is unacceptable.
The Oshkosh Common Council would be perfectly within its rights to go into closed executive session to discuss the performance of its officers. I believe the Council should go into closed session and conduct a vote of confidence on the Mayor's performance. Such a discussion and vote would provide citizens with the comfort of knowing that their elected officials actually care about possible abuses of power. In fact, I think it would show leadership and courage on Dell'Antonia's part if he were to ask the Council to hold a vote of confidence. Such an action would demonstrate a political maturity that is, unfortunately, rare among contemporary elected officials.
If members of the Oshkosh Common Council persist in remaining silent about this manner, then when they come up for reelection they must be asked to justify that silence.
Save for a story by Karl Ebert and an opinion piece by Jim Fitzenry, the Oshkosh Northwestern too has been largely silent on this matter. Should members of the Common Council wish to speak out on this web site about the Mayor's behavior, I would be more than happy to post their comments.