Citizen activists and journalists have been singing the Open Records Blues for a long time. Sunshine Week (March 13-20) is a time to raise awareness about the barriers to open government and how to overcome them. It's really heartwarming to see the local Oshkosh Northwestern endorsing Sunshine week, but the newspaper today included some clouds blocking the sun.
First, Executive Editor Stew Rieckman in his weekly column starts off by revealing he was "startled" to hear this comment from a candidate for local office: "It's hard to get things done in the open. We pay a price for it (open government) … you get some ugly things." But then he never tells us who that candidate is! (It sounds like Burk Tower, but Stew chose to protect the identity even though the candidate clearly recognized s/he was speaking on the record and even though more than a few voters would be equally startled.).
More troubling is that the paper then editorially endorses Five Rivers developer Tom Doig's request to delay construction until September, implying that the closed meeting and confidentiality agreements are mostly public relations problems. However, the editorialists have now even softened the PR stance. Back on Feb. 16 they wrote this: "Common Council members must insist in the next few weeks that the members of the Five Rivers development team hold at least two evening public meetings to meet with people. Local citizens need to see the charts up close, examine the financial specifics and get straight answers to their questions." Anyone seen any effort made in that direction? I didn't think so.
Another editorial today says that the city needs a "Plan B" in case Five Rivers doesn't happen. One of best ideas for the land remains the "living, learning, service community" proposed by UW Oshkosh Chancellor Wells some time ago. The editoralists call this a "bold plan" that "never made it past the planning stages." WHY did the plan not make it past the planning stages? Clearly it is because when Mr. Doig showed up his proposal took priority along with staff time that could have been used to build support for the Wells or other proposals like Paul Esslinger's call for a Bay Beach type of project.
On Tuesday the Common Council should reject Five Rivers' call for more time, commit themselves to openness and public involvement, and direct staff to get back to work soliciting proposals more appropriate for the area.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
The Northwestern's Sunshine and Clouds
I teach Communication Studies (First Amendment, Classical Rhetoric, Civic Engagement, Rhetoric of Rock Music) at UW Oshkosh. Served two terms on Oshkosh City Council. Originally from Brooklyn, NY.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Tony:
Just an FYI, I was not the candidate that explained that I had a problem with open government.
-Paul Esslinger
Thanks for the historial coverage by the paper on Five Rivers.
I thought this was interesting:
Editorial:
"District Attorney William Lennon got involved as to whether the meeting violated Wisconsin's Open Meetings law."
Stew:
"The day after the meeting, I contacted district attorney Bill Lennon and explained why we were concerned on the publics' behalf. He asked me to draft a memo outlining the issues. He has begun an inquiry and we await his findings."
He got involved? Or he was contacted by YOUR paper to get involved?
Does the paper read their own articles?
I didn't see where Tony said Paul Esslinger said anything about having a problem with open government. Is this Esslinger jumping up to grandstand and proclaim his innocence about things again? Why does this guy always feel like he has to set the record straight?
Lennon got involved at the paper's request. Both statements mean the same thing. Stop taking things so literally just to find fault with the paper.
Paul has no standing here. He met with Doig in private and even signed a confidentiality agreement. He cannot make any claims to open-meeting innocence, at least as far as fully disclosing facts to voters goes.
What the devil is Paul Esslinger talking about?
The editorial in the ONW refered to an INCUMBANT criticizing open government. It didn't say which but we can assume it is Tower. After Esslingers remarks, now we know that it was Tower. He needs to be ousted if he wants to keep everything closed.
Tower didn't sign a private confidentiality agreement and meet with the developer without the city attorney present. The person with those dishonest habits was Paul Esslinger. He is not genuine and need to be removed, either by votes or by law.
Paul was just clarifying he was not the one referred to in Stew's editorial. That leaves Burke "the dim-wit, please re-elect me to this no time, I don't have enough information, lets keep the taxpayers out of it" Tower.
Lets not turn this into yet another Bash Pauls strand. If you want to do that go to Eye on Oshkosh.
Trying to limit free speech New Voice? Eye on Oshkosh readers criticized Esslinger's job performance just like readers here have done. If he is voted out no one would complain about him any more. Would that be more to your liking?
I also would have to note that Stew Rickman also seemed to echo a comment made by one of the "Five Rivers Five" about "..presumption of openness.."
Isn't that plagarism? he pretty much lifted the whole phrase..
No it is not plaigirism. You can't plaigirise someone's words and even if you could, fair use laws allow you to use a portion of things from another source.
without saying who it is???
You can and Stew Rieckman already has!!!
They are spoken words. You cannot plagiarize some body's words.
No New Voice, much better to bash Burk Tower. You're not biased at all are you? Neither of these 2 candidates is an ideal choice. they both have done secret things that go against the grain of open government. How can you support one and not the other? Or diss one and not the other?
So according to New Voice, you cannot criticize Mr. Esslinger but Burk Tower is fair game, seems a little inconsistent to me.
well yes, you can plagarize someone's words! If you use the exact term someone used and you know who did and you do not give credit especially when it was printed in your very paper (do I sense that they want us to somehow remember?)
You CANNOT plagiarize someone's spoken words. If you are in doubt about that, consult your attorney or any dictionary. Webster's gives the following definition: "To take and use ideas, passages, etc., from another's work, representing them as one's own." If someone from the Five Rivers Five has written something that is another thing, but that is not what has been discussed here, is it? Even if it was, good luck winning a case over a phrase. Do you have nothing more important to focus on than this?
well it just ticked me off that they took a comment from one of the five and Stew comes along and says it like he thought of it.
I find it hard for Stew to say something like that...
Post a Comment