I learned about this shocking tactic here: "Vrana Accused of Ethics Violation," by Owen, Boots & Sabers, 2 June 2009. He linked to "Alderman May Face Probe of his Ethics; Terry Vrana Said Some Books in Library are Pornographic," by Dave Rank, West Bend Daily News, 2 June 2009, p.A1.
As Dan Gerstein said, "The ... elites have convinced themselves that they are taking a stand against cultural tyranny. .... [T]he reality is that it is those who cry 'Censorship!' the loudest who are the ones trying to stifle speech and force their moral world-view on others." Can anyone argue the ethics complaint by city resident Kristina Smithers is not an effort to stifle speech and force an "anything goes" world-view on others, including children?
People who say the library material for children is not pornographic are trying to shut up those who say it might be. Shutting up an elected governmental official means shutting up all the people who voted for him. A possible free speech violation (as a frivolous or vexatious ethics complaint might be) is being used to oppose claimed free speech violations. Based on that injustice alone, it is easy to see who represents whom and which position is more credible.
Publication: APD - West Bend Daily News;
Date: Jun 2, 2009;
Section: Front Page;
Page Number: A1
Alderman May Face Probe of his Ethics;
Terry Vrana Said Some Books in Library are Pornographic
Terry Vrana Said Some Books in Library are Pornographic
By DAVE RANK Daily News Staff
The West Bend Ethics Committee will decide if a complaint filed against city Alderman Terry Vrana over comments he made about the city’s library and the Library Board is serious enough to hold a hearing.
City resident Kristina Smithers filed a complaint against Vrana Friday afternoon.
Monday night, Vrana said he had no comment about Smithers’ complaint, adding that anyone can look at the video of the Common Council session in question and make up their own minds.
“There was no ethics violation,” said Alderman Michael Schlotfeldt, who sits next to Vrana, volunteering a statement.
City attorney Mary Schanning said she had a chance to look at the complaint Monday.
“Basically, what we do is give it to the Ethics Committee,” Schanning said of the procedure to deal with a complaint about the actions of a city official.
The five-member Ethics Committee first decides if the allegation would constitute a violation of the city’s ethics code if proven to be true, Schanning said.
If the committee members decide the allegation reaches that level, then the committee would schedule a hearing to determine the truth of the allegations, the city attorney said.
The Ethics Committee does not meet on a regular basis, she said, and no meeting is yet arranged to discuss Smithers’ allegation. Smithers alleges statements Vrana made during an April 21 Common Council meeting during debate over the reappointment of four Library Board members demonstrated unethical behavior because: He did not act in an independent, impartial manner; His “conduct did not reenforce the public’s confidence in the integrity of the city government;” “(H)e used his aldermanic position to purport his personal philosophy not that of the city as a whole.” Vrana had expressed an opinion that pornographic books were in the library’s young adult section.
What do you think?
Should an ethics hearing be held over Alderman Terry Vrana’s comment that some books in the city library are pornographic? Why? Give your opinions to the Daily News via e-mail at dailynews@conleynet.com, by fax at 338-1984 or write to 100 S. Sixth Ave., West Bend, WI 53095. Limit your opinions, which will be considered for publication as a letter to the editor, to 300 words and include your name, municipality of residence and phone number.
.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI can comment. I filed it. What I will say is that what the paper did not say is that I did not file it because I disagreed with alderman Vrana's vote regarding the library board. What I am bringing into question is his very public statement "I don't care what the policy is, I want those books out of there." That is the issue.
Sure I do not agre with his opinion. However, I can put my big girl pants on and handle it. What I am calling into question is if he states that he does not care what the policy or procedure is with one arm of local government can he be trusted to not use the same tactic when voting or making choices for the city as a whole.
The two bullet points the paper listed are not the primary issue I have they simply are what the paper choose to write about.
On that note I am not going to debate my issue on the internet, the news media and such. I do not feel the need to try this in the press. Not to mention the library issue is closed for now. my complaint has nothing to do with did he or didn't he approve of the mayors choices for library board members no matter how others may wish to frame it. It is not connected.
Respectfully,
Kristina
Message 1 of 3 due to blog post size limitations ...
ReplyDeleteKristina,
Thank you for writing here.
Based on what you said, it appears to me you had a rational basis for filing the ethics complaint. It makes total sense that one might think that if policy is not followed in one matter, it might not be followed in another.
Further, what you said about the media not getting the story correct also makes total sense. I really appreciate the clarifications you made here, and I'm sure others will benefit as well.
However, I believe your reasoning is not well thought out, respectfully speaking. Please allow me to suggest why. After which, please allow me to suggest you consider withdrawing your ethics complaint.
First, generally speaking, the filing of this ethics complaint looks akin to a SLAPP suit. "A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ('SLAPP') is a lawsuit that is intended to intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. Winning the lawsuit is not necessarily the intent of the person filing the SLAPP. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate."
It is quite possible that the filing of the ethics complaint for the reasons you stated here may be seen in a similar light. And it may have the appearance of impropriety.
At a minimum, it certainly does appear that you are trying to squelch his freedom of speech all in an effort to supposedly support freedom of speech for children to have unfettered access to any material no matter how inappropriate in the public library and no matter what the US Supreme Court or just plain common sense says about that. It certainly appears ironic to any fair-minded person to appear to use free speech violations to support the freedom of speech.
Message 2 of 3 due to blog post size limitations ...
ReplyDeleteSecond, your concern is "if he states that he does not care what the policy or procedure is with one arm of local government can he be trusted to not use the same tactic when voting or making choices for the city as a whole." It sounds reasonable on its face, but there is a significant matter apparently not taken into consideration.
The policy of the library need not be and never is anywhere considered to be policy which the city must follow. Imagine if library policy had the same force of law as, say, policy that requires city governments to provide open access to city governmental records. That would mean the city could be sued for failure to follow library policy as equally as it could for failure to provide open public records. That is simply not true.
And since huge numbers of libraries simply copy and paste American Library Association [ALA] policy, whether good or bad for the community, that would mean local leaders and communities must accept ALA policy and treat it as equal to other city policy.
In other words, he is perfectly and legally able to consider library policy on a different footing than the city's policies.
So "if he states that he does not care what the policy or procedure is with one arm of local government" other than library policy, then it is plausible to say, he cannot "be trusted to not use the same tactic when voting or making choices for the city as a whole." But since he is talking about library policy and such policy is not on the same footing as city policy for which an alderman is responsible, he has not said anything that might even potentially violate any ethical code, not even one iota.
Evidence that the library policy is not on the same footing as city policy is that city policy is written as municipal laws or statutes. Not only is the library policy not part of that code, but the library policy is not even easily available. Is was not written by elected representatives. Its boiler plate language source was the ALA, not elected representatives of the people acting in the public trust.
Message 3 of 3 due to blog post size limitations ...
ReplyDeleteThird, the factual matter here has little to do with the misapplication of policy. Rather, the refusal of the library board to act at all is the stated cause of the Council's not reappointing the board members who were refusing to take action. And the alderman against which you filed your ethics complaint was part of the majority of aldermen who acted to ensure the people he represents are properly served, in this case by the library board.
So instead of acting in a manner that calls into question his ethics, quite the opposite is true. He acted ethically in acting to seek the replacement of library board members who stonewalled the public with library board members who may act in a timely fashion on behalf of the citizens.
So, Kristina, I now ask you consider withdrawing your ethics complaint. The complaint has the appearance of impropriety, library policy is not on the same footing as city policy, and the Council's actions to replace non-responsive library board members was perfectly legitimate.
Kristina, will you withdraw your ethics complaint?
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI thank you for your reply, and respect you opinion. However, as I stated I am not going to discuss the issue of my complaint any further at this point. Debating it in cyberspace or discussing the merit of it or not is no longer up to me. I filed the complaint and am allowing it to take it's course. If it is found to have merit and heard by the ethics committee ok, if the opposite is the outcome I will be OK with that as well.
I do stand by the complaint filed and the few comments I have made regarding it.
Again, thank you for your reply.
Kristina
Well said, Kristina.
ReplyDeleteOkay, Kristina. Thanks again.
ReplyDeleteHi, Maria.
Everyone, let's set aside the issue for a moment. Isn't it interesting that we can have this conversation in cyberspace? Kristina, for example, could add accuracy and color to a freshly minted media report, then we could discuss it here before the next newspaper is even printed. To me that is really interesting. And this free speech is repeated again and again (different topics) on Ginny's blog, Owen's blog, Maria's blog, Mark's blog, the NCAC blog, my blog, etc. (But not the ALA OIF blog -- ironically, it doesn't allow comments.)
What do you guys think?
"Not to mention the library issue is closed for now."
ReplyDeleteJust wondering where you got that information? As far as WBCFSL is concerned, this issue remains wide open. The best is yet to come.
Curious: How is filing an ethics complaint with the city an "attack", and how is it "silencing" the official?
ReplyDeleteWas Ginny's attempt to file an ethics complaint against the mayor and a different alderman also an "attack"?
It the alderman did nothing wrong, then the complain will be tossed out. So what are you worried about?
Concerned West Bend Citizen, thank you for writing.
ReplyDeleteReally, thank you. You give me an opportunity to say something I have help back, until now.
You said, "Curious: How is filing an ethics complaint with the city an 'attack', and how is it 'silencing' the official?" I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you have not read all the comments.
It's an attack when it is filed for malicious or vexatious purposes. As it turns out, this very blog post and the comments contained therein prove the nature of the ethics complaint is malicious or vexatious.
As it turns out, the very person who filed the attack commented here. As it turns out, she admitted the filing is for malicious or vexatious purposes, though not in so many words.
Recall that I laid out clear and specific reasons why she should consider withdrawing her complaint, and I did so in response to her first comment here.
Notice how she responded: "I filed the complaint and am allowing it to take it's course. If it is found to have merit and heard by the ethics committee ok, if the opposite is the outcome I will be OK with that as well."
So she is essentially admitting the complaint may not have merit. And she'll be okay with that! Malicious? Vexatious? Sounds like a textbook case to me.
Now you said, "Curious: How is filing an ethics complaint with the city an 'attack', and how is it 'silencing' the official?" I believe you can figure it out from here given the above.
And in furtherance of a claim that freedom of speech requires children to have access to inappropriate material despite the US Supreme Court and common sense, etc., her attack is particularly ironic/unethical, no?
Dan,
ReplyDelete"she admitted the filing is for malicious or vexatious purposes, though not in so many words."
That statement could not be farther from the truth. Although you are free to have your opinion.
Respectfully,
Kristina
And since huge numbers of libraries simply copy and paste American Library Association [ALA] policy, whether good or bad for the community, that would mean local leaders and communities must (not) accept ALA policy and treat it as equal to other city policy.
ReplyDeleteAs a former library director who recently spent months drafting our policy manual, I take great offense at this remark. My policy manual was 72 pages long in its final version. It was written with a great deal of thought and the board went over every word carefully, finally approving the thing after four or so meetings. I can assure you that we did not cut and paste.
We did include the ALA Bill of Rights and the Freedom to Read statements, but these were also deliberated and approved only after much thought and debate.
Furthermore, the manual was approved by a board of trustees that had been appointed by the mayor of my city, and approved by the Council. We all assumed we were working on behalf of the city. I hate to think that the hard work that we put into that document could be treated with so little respect by an alderman. At the very least, such a response would show a very poor understanding of the process.
Why in the world did we go through all that trouble if, as you seem to suggest here, it ultimately means nothing?
Nanette, thanks for writing.
ReplyDeleteI have to say you wrote one of the funniest responses I have seen.
You said, "I can assure you that we did not cut and paste." Then in the very next sentence, you said, "We did include the ALA Bill of Rights and the Freedom to Read statements...."
Let's see that again in context:
"As a former library director who recently spent months drafting our policy manual, I take great offense at this remark. My policy manual was 72 pages long in its final version. It was written with a great deal of thought and the board went over every word carefully, finally approving the thing after four or so meetings. I can assure you that we did not cut and paste.
"We did include the ALA Bill of Rights and the Freedom to Read statements, but these were also deliberated and approved only after much thought and debate."
That is one of the funniest juxtapositions of sentences saying the exact opposite things I have ever seen. We did not cut and paste, but we included the ALA Library Bill of Rights and the Freedom to Read statements. I guess you are describing wholesale inclusion of ALA policy without cutting and pasting.
Thank you. I rest my case.
You then make my case even better than I could have: "Furthermore, the manual was approved by a board of trustees that had been appointed by the mayor of my city, and approved by the Council. We all assumed we were working on behalf of the city."
That's right. They "assumed" you were working on behalf of the city. In reality, "We did include the ALA Bill of Rights and the Freedom to Read statements...."
SafeLibraries, Esq.: Your Honor, I would like to admit Nanette's statements into evidence as an admission against interest. Said admission evidences that ALA policy is wholesale included in local library policy and rubber stamped by the library board and city council because they all "assumed we were working on behalf of the city." But the wholesale inclusion of ALA policy evidences they were in fact working on behalf of the ALA.
Judge: Permission granted.
My board voted to include the Freedom the Read and Bill of Rights statements in the library policy manual because they happened to agree with their content.
ReplyDeleteIf you think that makes them ALA lackeys, you've a right to your opinion, wild-eyed and misinformed though it may be. I would argue that striving to maintain diversity in the collection, and defending their patrons' right to read a wide variety of viewpoints IS working in the community's best interests.
I just found the results of the vrana thing on another blog. I think it is from the one who did it. I don't remember the blog adress though. You can find it I think.
ReplyDeleteNanette, thanks again.
ReplyDeleteYou said, "I would argue that striving to maintain diversity in the collection, and defending their patrons' right to read a wide variety of viewpoints...." I agree with you on that.
Inappropriate material for children has nothing to do with "viewpoints." This is not a viewpoint: "I try to look into my boyfriend's eyes while I'm sucking. It seems to get him off faster. I also lick and suck his balls, but not too hard. If my mouth gets tired I use my hand to jerk him off for a little while until I can suck again. Don't suck too hard - I try to make my mouth feel soft but tight." Actually, I guess it is a viewpoint, the one you get when you look in your boyfriend's eyes while, oh, you know.
The US Supreme Court said, "The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree."
The US Supreme Court is more of an authority than the ALA, would you agree?
It is true that "striving to maintain diversity in the collection, and defending ... patrons' right to read a wide variety of viewpoints" is important, but the ALA's policies go further and allow for what is essentially the tossing aside of what the US Supreme Court said. That's the objectionable part, not the part you cited about diversity.
Anonymous, thanks for writing.
I found that source you recommended, and I just found out that the ethics complaint was denied. Here are the links:
"ENTIRE Complaint to Ethics Committee," by Kristina, Just My Thoughts, 3 June 2009.
"Outcome," by Kristina, Just My Thoughts, 10 June 2009.