by Tony Palmeri
May 23, 2001
In April, the Oshkosh Common Council passed new rules for citizen statements at Council meetings, declaring in an arrogant and pompous manner that from now on citizens in the statement period can only talk about items not on the meeting agenda for the night. Also, citizen statements must be about something that the Council can "do something about." Such rules are usually put forth in the name of "running an efficient business meeting" or similar nonsense on stilts, but the reality is that we currently have in place a thin-skinned Council that does not take criticism well and cannot bear not having the last word on agenda items. Commentary pundit Dan Rylance, in fact, now refers to Mayor Jon "citizen statement scrutinizer in chief" Dell'Antonia as "Benito" in recognition of the fact that this Council's fear of citizen speech and attempts to minimize citizen input (as in the case of the debacle that gave us the possibility of the now not so luxurious office complex on the 100 block) has an eerie resemblence to the government of Italy during the reign of Il Duce.
Now if the Council is serious about its speech control rules, then it stands to reason that they would follow them also. How then, can the Council explain Melanie Bloechl's Council Member Statement at last night's meeting? During her statement, Mrs. Bloechl not only was critical of Shirley Brabender Mattox's vote to rezone Washburn St. earlier in the evening, but also suggested that people like Mattox are the reason why citizens are cynical about politics. So not only did Bloechl use her statement to address something that was already on the evening's agenda, she also launched into a personal attack against Mattox--hardly something the Council can "do something about." Deputy Mayor Stephen Hintz, in charge of running the meeting in the absence of Mayor Jon "citizen statement scrutinizer in chief" Dell'Antonia, neither prevented Bloechl from speaking nor did he (or any other Council for that matter) warn Bloechl that her comments violated the Council's rules for citizen statements and would be silenced next time.
Now I personally have no problem with Bloechl or any of the Councilors saying whatever the hell they please. Unlike the majority of the Council who voted in favor of these ridiculous restraints on citizen speech, I actually value the First Amendment. But if the Council is going to place restraints on citizens, aren't they obligated to place the same restraints on themselves? Should Bloechl or even Benito have more privileges than anyone else? You mean Carver and Bender are capable of being scrutinized but not Bloechl and Benito? What gives with the double standards?
Paul Esslinger used his statement to wish me a happy June 1 birthday. Thanks Paul, but my birthday is actually July 1. As I am turning 40, I refuse to let you rob me of my last month of 39. I expect a correction to be stated at the next meeting and noted in the minutes. (:-).