Tonight the Oshkosh Common Council said "No" to placing a troop withdrawal referendum on the April ballot. I was becoming physically ill during Councilor Shirley Mattox's remarks (she was bothered by the fact that there are people who "relish the idea of three months of debate on this referendum") and so I left before the vote. I imagine it was 6-1 with only Paul Esslinger voting in favor.
Quite frankly, neither I nor anyone involved in the referendum movement were expecting anything different. Most politicians, when given the opportunity to reject something controversial on the basis of a narrow technicality, will use that basis every time. (Always backed up, of course, with grand speeches about how they are "upholding the rules." Yeah, right).
The narrow technicality here was the fact that petitioners did not receive the amount of signatures necessary to force direct legislation, even though it was pointed out repeatedly that confusion existed as to whether or not the city considered this item to be direct legislation. I know for a fact that when the city took the position that this was not direct legislation, there were people in the community who would not sign because they feared only a lawsuit would get the item on the ballot. They were hesitant to have to put the city in the position of facing a lawsuit in tough budget times.
In my remarks I pleaded with the Council that if they were going to reject the question, to reject it on grounds much stronger than a narrow technicality. We are, after all, dealing with a life and death issue here. I think that argument did resonate with a few of them, but to no one's surprise it was all to no avail.
The good news is that they seemed to all agree that if the petitioners were to try and do this again for the November ballot, a proper amount of signatures needed for direct legislation is all that is needed. The Council cannot vote it down at that point. (It was amusing to hear Councilor Bryan Bain say that if there are enough signatures to place it on the November ballot, he'd gladly vote for it then. Note to Bryan: your vote won't be needed if there are enough signatures. Your vote was needed tonight and you did not come through for narrow, technical reasons.)
Except for the brief bout with nausea I experienced during Mattox's remarks, I actually left the building feeling very good about the city of Oshkosh. When I arrived here in 1989, it was shortly before Bush #41's invastion of Panama. I remember at that time I could not find ONE PERSON in the community (though there were a few on the UW Oshkosh campus) interested in protesting the war. During Desert Storm of 1991, I had to take students down to Milwaukee and Madison because there was nothing going on up here.
It was difficult to imagine in the early 1990s that Oshkosh would become a safe place for peace rallies, social justice activism, and a debate about a troop withdrawal referendum in the City Council.
Long after politicians looking for narrow technicalities are gone and forgotten, the spirit of these citizens will live on. The narrowly technical politicians tonight simply delayed the inevitable.
When I left the building I found myself saying "Life goes on." But then as I walked home in the cold I thought that, given the horrors of war that our soldiers face while the politicians wait for a proper amount of signatures, it's more accurate to say Death Goes On.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Tony, I agree whole-heartedly with most of your thoughts but I want to make a couple of points.
First, I listened very closely to city attorney Warren Kraft's words. He did not say that the proper number of signatures "would" constitute direct legistlation. He very carefully chose his words by emphasizing that it "could." And he emphasized the word "could."
So it should not surprise anyone that come this Fall if the right number of signatures is presented to the city clerk, we don't end up with yet another situation where this effort is stonewalled or otherwise blocked. I would hope that won't be the case, but I remain cautiously optimistic about it.
Folks can call me suspicious if they wish, but we have seen too many instances with elected officials and city administration in this community where words are carefully chosen, yet answers not completely given; and words end up not meaning what we think they did. A game of semantics is oftentimes played.
The second point I wish to make is one that I discussd with my brother earlier this evening. So many of these council members have the audacity to talk about how the requirements of the process were not met and the petition-gatherers did not follow the rules. Yet it appears to be okay that they themselves did not follow the rules when they voted to waive the bids on the bathroom construction at the Leach Amphitheater last year. They can talk all they want about how there were circumstances that deemed the bid-waiving necessary. But it never ceases to amaze me how they can twist and turn things to fit their arguments against something, but those very same rules do not have to be applied when it is something they want to do.
Paul Esslinger summed it up best by saying there are two processes by which a referendum can get on a ballot. One failed because the rules of the game were changed late in the final quarter. The other failed because the majority of our council got hung up on a technicality (i.e., they don't want to make a decision that will make them unpopular with a huge segment of our community. Much easier, and safer, to not have a spine and stick with the old "technicality" issue.)
In trying to be hopeful about tonight's meeting I thought about these points:
A.The public statements in favor of the referendum overwhelmingly outnumbered the statements against.
B. The council members nearly all felt the need to justify their "no" votes with the "if only there had been enough signatures" statement. So if the issue is re-presented to them in time for the November election, there would apparently be no problem getting enough council support (uless that was not their real reason for voting no).
C. The debate seemed mostly on point and civil (though the clergy member with the cast on her foot was called names after her pro-referendum statement).
D. This debate has increased dialoge and civic involement which is alwaya a good thing.
This has been a noble effort and can survive this temporary setback. If only, as you say, our soldiers and the innocent Iraqi citizens could survive as easily.
Cheryl and Oldestchild:
Thank you both for your excellent comments.
Cheryl, you are absolutely correct about what Kraft said. "Cautious optimism" is certainly the appropriate stance at this point.
And you are doubly correct about the hypocrisy regarding rule breaking. I wish I had made that point during my statement at the council! (Not that it would have made a difference, of course).
Oldestchild, that's horrible to hear that the clergy member was called names. She made a remarkably eloquent statement.
I just want to reiterate a point Cheryl made, that I also noticed in the e-mail Warren Kraft sent to the City Council a few days ago.
Kraft said "Could be", not "would be". He most definately left that door wide open for future rejection.
Furthermore, there is this assumption that the local effort was tied in with this state wide Network for Peace and Justice, and thus obviously aware that this group had issued a legal opinion (they are not lawyers) suggesting that direct legislation would apply. If you look at that website (as apparently some of the city council and the city attorney did) you will note that it is not updated frequently, and the information regarding Oshkosh is WAY out of date. And why should a local group of petitioners turn to a state wide peace network for legal advice over that of the city attorney? What are we paying him for, just to defend the city against law suits?
The fact is that the local group working on this was working entirely on its own. Working men and women, many with families, doing something that they cared about. The state wide initiatives were in the background, but there were no busloads of activists from Madison coming to Oshkosh to canvas the city. There was no legal team giving sound advice (I bet the smoking referendum had a legal team). This was just grassroots peace-centered democracy - people who cared about the fact that our great nation has taken on a policy of pre-emptive war, who feel the need to speak up, and act up against this war.
So while this is too bad, it is no suprise.
We all know the kind of man Hitler was. Elected officials will never please 100 percent of the people all the time. But leaders - at least responsible ones - should at least do what is right for the majority of those whom they are to serve; not the other way around. We see just the opposite time and time again from so many of our local officials. It is shameful.
Tony, I remember my parents protesting the first Gulf war in 1991 with about 30 other people across from the Public Library in the small park on the corner on a fairly regular basis.
The peace movement was big in Oshkosh during Vietnam, as the Oshkosh Public Museum has photos showing.
I am not attacking you Tony, but the peace and social justice movement in Oshkosh did not start with your arrival. It is not something you created. There are many people in Oshkosh who believe and have long believed in peace and social justice and live it everyday in their work, in their community involvement, in their church and interactions. They are less interested in talking about themselves in blogs and cable shows and trumpeting their role in their efforts than making a difference. They recognize that it is not about them.
Perhaps the ten people who spoke in support of the referendum at the council meeting should have been there two hours earlier to
let Congressman Petri know their feelings.
In your post about the Council decision, you refer to yourself "I", 15 times.
TO Anonymous:
I did not say that that peace and justice movements started with my arrival, and it is no disrespect to those Oshkosh citizens who protested Vietnam to say that protests in that era were widespread all over the country. (Although when Martin Luther King visited this region in 1967 his appearance was protested by high school students--today we would have many high school students from Oshkosh walking hand in hand with him. I know I had little to do with creating that change but it is surely a major change in this community).
I do not recall any Gulf War protests here at all in 1991 (though I do remember several public celebrations of the war), but I will take your word that they occurred. I do remember that somebody painted "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" on that military vehicle near Oshkosh West High School, but at the time I could not find out who did it. The late Barbara Sniffen, a dear friend of mine and a peace and justice activist of the first order, was against the war at that time but she too could not direct me to any local action. At that time I literally did not know how to organize rallies.
It is too bad that whoever organized those protests were not able to sustain their activities and make them into something like what we call the Peace and Justice Center today. From 1991 - 2000 it was very difficult to even say the word "poverty" here (it still is, but at least the powers that be in the press and government have finally started to acknowledge a problem).
Peace and social justice activism is now part of the fabric of the community in a way quite unlike the periods you mention. Oshkosh was engaged in protest of this current war before it even started, something rare for any city let alone one like Oshkosh. We have a long, long, long way to go, as do almost all communities in America including so-called "liberal" Meccas like Madison.
Feel free to demean my activities in any way you like, and I don't even care if there's a name attached. Because you are right, this is not about me. It's about dead, dying, and maimed soldiers that have to fight so that elected officials could uphold narrow technicalities.
"In your post about the Council decision, you refer to yourself "I", 15 times."
I didn't know that.
I can't believe it.
I promise to do better next time.
I do. I really do. I mean _I_ really do.
Hey Cheryl, would you mind if we changed the name of the show to "I on Oshkosh"?
I think it's time to sign off now. Good night everybody--Tony
"Technicalities", Tony, are the bane of the law of this country. If lawmakers and citizens routinely disregarded rules they considered mere technicalities, we would have chaos. The entire point of the appellate court system is technicalities. You can't just change the rules to suit your needs.
Dear Anonymous,
Thank you for raising a serious issue. You are of course correct about the chaos that could result from a routine discarding of rules. The troop withdrawal situation is different, however, because the Council was not being asked to break any rules but rather apply a different set that they have within their right to apply.
*Rule #1: Force direct legislation via signatures.
*Rule #2: Council uses its own statutory power to place the item on the ballot regardless of number of signatures (as they have done with a variety of ballot questions).
In short, no request to change the rules was made to suit anyone's needs. The request was to apply a set of rules that the Council has within its power to apply and has in fact applied before. Thank you. --Tony
If only rule #1 were in play, then I would agree with you entirely and in fact would not have asked the Council to place the item on the ballot. But everyone agrees that rues #1 and #2 are equal, and if others posting on this thread are correct it appears that even rule #1 is not necessarily a gurarantee.
The last two paragraphs in my previous post should be in reverse order. In too much of a rush as I'm getting ready to go and teach this morning! --Tony
Of course he is going to use the word "I" it is "TIME FOR TONY" at "TALK TO TONY" on "TONYPALMERI.COM"
Tony, changing the name of the show sounds like an excellent idea. How about "I AM Oshkosh?"
Incidentally this issue is now available for discussion on the Eye on Oshkosh website, for anyone wishing to participate.
I believe the referendum should have been on the ballot. I think it is overly emotional to say that "Death Goes On" because the referendum was voted down. The war would not have stopped because the referendum made it to the ballot. The war will not end if such a referendum should pass. However, I do think anyone has the right to make their opinion known.
BTW as far as I know, Congress has yet to declare this a "war." And unlike Viet Nam our soldiers are volunteers. They knew what was possible when they signed and many signed expressly for that reason. While I would have liked to see the referendum on the ballot, I would have voted against it simply because I support the troops. I have/had no control over them going there and don't agree with most of the reasons, but they want to do their job and want us to be proud of them. I know because I have friends and family there now and I've been there and done that.
If those that supported the referendum wanted to make a big noise, every one of them should write their Congressmen and the President himself. Imagine what several thousand letters at once would do at Feingold and Kohl's office.
Dear anonymous:
Thank you for contributing to this discussion. You and I just have a different perspective on what it means to "support the troops." Everyone involved in the referendum movement really does believe that being involved in the effort is a form of patriotism and troop support. I thought the best part of last night's discussion at the council meeting was that the pro and con speakers really did seem to respect each other (I did not hear the attacks made on the minister, so that would be an exception; another person called Bill Castle a coward and that too did not fit with the general tone of the evening).
Only the seven council members will ever know what is truly in their minds and hearts when they vote. In my opinion, and let me clear that THIS IS ONLY MY OPINION, a person who sincerely believes in their heart that rejecting this kind of question on the basis of a signature count is not really supporting the troops. Others feel differently.
And you're right that we should spend more time writing letters to our representatives. But I will also say that Mr. Petri, being that he was in Oshkosh last night, should have spoken on this matter at the Council. Like most members of the Congress, his behavior on the war has fallen somewhere between uncritical and rubber stamping, and regardless of our stands on the war we should be able to agree more should be expected from people in his position. I'd say the same thing about Herb Kohl. --Tony
If this would have made it on the ballot and passed they would have had to send all the Oshkosh troops home.
Is it not interesting it taked a grand total of 1400 signatures (you need 200 signatures to qaulify for a city council position ) for the entire city council to have their names put on the ballot for the office they choose to run for.
But a refrendum has to far more greater numbers than that Why is that- I its a state statue - but does"nt that seem out of wack to you. It does to me.
That's a good point Mike, though the Statutes also give the Council the power to place referendum questions on the ballot without any signatures when appropriate. Only Mr. Esslinger had the courage to take that stand. Perhaps you can do the same thing on the County Board.
Post a Comment