by Tony Palmeri
August 15, 2001
Last night the Oshkosh Common Council saw fit to cross-examine a sex offender, vote down an attempt to remove the ridiculous "relevance rule" from citizen statements, and listen to Melanie Bloechl's dramatic reading of two meetings worth of Grand Opera House Advisory Board minutes. Yet the Council's "Silent Six" (Paul Esslinger, Melanie Bloechl, Mark Harris, Stephen Hintz, Bill Castle, Shirley Mattox) still could not bring themselves to condone or condemn Mayor Jon Dell'Antonia's use of the Oshkosh City Attorney to "go after" a citizen. The First Amendment is now in its 65th day of being held hostage by the Oshkosh Common Council, with no indication that any of the Silent Six intend to comment publicly on their Mayor's behavior unless they are compelled to do so by the Oshkosh Northwestern, the Winnebago County District Attorney's Office, or public demand. [note: I refer to Dell'Antonia as "their" Mayor because the Mayor of Oshkosh is elected only by the 7 members of the Council--there is no public input on the selection].
Councilor Paul Esslinger was the only member of the Council to come even remotely close to addressing the issue of the Mayor's use of the attorney, but instead of addressing that issue he chose instead to try to discredit me by labeling my "Silent Six" essay "nonsense" and mischaracterizing an e-mail exchange he shared with me. Esslinger claims that the "Silent Six" should be called the "Fearless Four" because, according to Esslingerian logic, his requesting to be a guest on Commentary somehow constitutes speaking out on the subject. He then claimed falsely that his request to be on Commentary had been refused. Here are the July 13, 2001 e-mails Esslinger and I shared on the subject:
|
Tony: I would love to comment on your "Mayoral vote of confidence" page. Seeing as you felt it appropriate to have the Mayor, and Council Member Harris on 1/2 hour segments, wouldn't it be fair to invite me, and other members of the Council on 1/2 hour segments? This would allow a fair debate on the issue rather than e-mailing responses. I also think your audience may not have the luxury of reading your website, but they obviously watch the show. Please let me know what your thoughts are. Sincerely, Paul Esslinger |
|
Hi Paul, Let me talk to Mather. I think we have guests lined up already for the rest of the summer. Dell'Antonia and Harris were invited because their names were mentioned in a critical way by more than one guest in the last couple of months. They appeared in separate half-hour segments because the Mayor, for reasons that I am unaware of, said he would only come on the show if he could appear by himself. We appreciate your willingness to be on the program. My guess is that the next time we do a council show, we'll invite Hintz and Castle as they seem to be the two who have not been on in a while, especially Steve. Also, when he left the studio the other day, Harris said that he would like to be on with Bloechl. That would be fun. We certainly will invite you to be on again--just don't be surprised if it's not until September at the earliest. I heard that you are a new parent again? Congratulations! -Tony |
"We certainly will invite you to be on again--just don't be surprised if it's not until September at the earliest." Does that sound like a "refusal" of Esslinger's request to appear? Of course not, and if he has any respect at all for the truth then Mr. Esslinger will retract his false statement at the next council meeting.
Interestingly, at the Council's April 17 organizational meeting Esslinger moved the following: "SPEAKERS SHALL REFRAIN FROM VERBAL ATTACKS AGAINST ANY INDIVIDUAL, BUSINESS OR OTHER ENTITIY, OTHER THAN COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CITY STAFF WHO ARE PHYSICALLY PRESENT AND ABLE TO RESPOND" (Esslinger; second, Bloechl). Surely Mr. Esslinger could not have meant that it is okay for members of the Council to launch attacks against citizens with whom they disagree? Calling a person's essay "nonsense" and accusing them falsely of refusing to invite someone to be a guest on a show most certainly constitutes an attack. I suggest that Mr. Esslinger try to uphold the motion that he supposedly believed in on April 17.
What's more troubling than Esslinger's pathetic attempt to discredit me is that he apparently doesn't appreciate the gravity of the real issue at hand. Does the Council believe that the Mayor's use of the City Attorney to "go after" a citizen was appropriate? Yes or no? Must citizens wait until the Councilors appear on "Commentary" before we are allowed to know whether the Council condones or condemns a use of the City Attorney that is clearly not endorsed by Wisconsin State Statutes or the Oshkosh Municipal Code?
Councilor Mark Harris made an excellent point during the discussion of the relevance rule. He said that he was concerned that with the relevance rule in place, some citizens may not come to speak before the Council out of fear that their comments will be deemed "not relevant." My question is this: why doesn't Mr. Harris and the rest of the Silent Six see that the fear of being harassed by a City Attorney is much more of a silencer than the fear of being deemed not relevant? Why won't Mr. Harris and the rest of the Silent Six assure the citizens of Oshkosh that the Common Council does not support the use of the City Attorney in such a manner? Or, if the Silent Six believe that their Mayor's use of the attorney has been appropriate, why don't they just say that? Then at least those citizens who are outspoken will know what they are up against and will seek the appropriate legal protections.
Elected officials are sworn to uphold the laws. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask that the Common Council go into closed session, discuss whether the Mayor's use of the City Attorney constitutes a violation of statutes, and conduct a vote of confidence or at least let the citizens know that potential abuses of power are taken seriously. Council silence on this matter can only be interpreted as consent to the actions of the Mayor, meaning that I and any other citizen who chooses to communicate in a manner disagreeable to hizzoner must write always with the threat of legal intimidation hanging over our heads.
Attempts by Esslinger or other members of the Silent Six to discredit me will not make this issue go away. Until the Council upholds its responsibility, their Defiant Silence in support of their Mayor will be met by Defiant Speech in support of the Constitutional freedoms the Silent Six appear to have forgotten that they are sworn to protect.