West Bend Council Stands By Previous Decision
Good.
The West Bend Common Council rejected a request to rescind the council’s refusal to endorse Mayor Kristine Deiss’ recommendation to reappoint four library board members who were removed last month.
Alderman Nick Dobberstein brought the request to the attention of the council during the regular monthly meeting at City Hall on Monday night. The vote was 5-2 with one council member abstaining.
Voting against Dobberstein’s request were aldermen Tony Turner, Steve Hutchins, Allen Carter, Terry Vrana and Michael Schlotfeldt.
Voting in favor were Dobberstein and Roger Kist.
[...]
That prompted a group of about 15 members from the grassroots organization, West Bend Parents for Free Speech, to approach Schlofeldt at the bench following the conclusion of the meeting and angrily voice their displeasure.
Founder Maria Hanrahan said she was not only surprised by Schlofeldt’s “no” vote but was “disappointed that alderman Lindbeck abstained from voting.”
“We were really hoping that he would change his vote and perhaps one other alderman would change their vote but obviously that did not happen,” Hanrahan said.
Dobberstein shared with the council and the audience why he felt the removed members of the library board was worthy of reappointing. Despite offering as many as 10 reasons why, there was little discussion by the council members leading up to the vote.
Why is this good?
If the council had a beef with the library board, why didn’t it address the entire board instead of having four of the nine members take the fall?
If the council’s beef is that the board is dragging its feet, how does delaying the appointment of board members speed anything up?
If the council wants these particular board members removed, this is a poor way to do so, since these four members will continue to serve until replacements are confirmed.
The council’s involvement in the library kerfaffel didn’t make sense in the first place, and this makes even less.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 19, 2009 at 1100 hrs
Confirmation of new board members should be swift as nine persons have filed applications as of two weeks ago. This should be quite a simple process for our mayor. We can all move on.
The Council had no choice in the matter. The four members were up for reappaointment and a vote was mandatory. It should never have gotten this far, and the vote by our city council sent a clear message to other boards within our city.
If anything, the citizens of West Bend should be confident that their aldermen really do listen to them and advocate according to their requests.
Posted by GAMazy on May 19, 2009 at 1157 hrs
Exactly.
kwilly, the council didn’t insert themselves into the process. They had to vote one way or the other to appoint these Library Board members. The council used the opportunity to show their displeasure with the board’s actions. If the council is just supposed to rubber stamp the appointments, then why even bother having the vote?
Posted by Owen on May 19, 2009 at 1201 hrs
If anything, the citizens of West Bend should be confident that their aldermen really do listen to them and advocate according to their requests.
If anything this shows how a small number of people can completely intimidate a city council. This city council is more worried about getting reelected than doing what is correct for the largest number of city residents.
Terry Vrana should be recalled for calling the library a porn shop.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 19, 2009 at 1224 hrs
I’m not saying the council should rubber-stamp anything. I realize that the council had to vote to reappoint or not, but my question is was this the ONLY way to show it’s displeasure? As I said before, the council made these four members take the fall for the actions of the whole board.
Yes, the council has checks & balances on the city’s boards, but appointment votes should be based on the members’ qualifications, shouldn’t they? (It also seems strange to me that the members aren’t appointed individually so each person’s qualifications and work can be reviewed and discussed, but the council deals with the system it has.) These four were dumped based on, it seems, a single issue, regardless of what their prior service records were.
What’s the timeline for the mayor to re-appoint? Seems this could be dragged out even longer. Quantity of applicants doesn’t indicate their quality.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 19, 2009 at 1232 hrs
is was this the ONLY way to show it’s displeasure?
As I understand it, the council has virtually no oversight authority over the Library Board other than appointing its members. If they don’t like what the Library Board is doing, their recourse is to change the board membership.
appointment votes should be based on the members’ qualifications, shouldn’t they?
Depends on how you define “qualifications.” Dobberstein is a teacher. Is he qualified? There’s a lawyer. Etc. How does that make them any more qualified to serve on the Library Board than other people? I would certainly say that all of them ARE qualified, but that doesn’t mean that someone else isn’t also qualified. The purpose of a board is to give community members control of their library.
Yes, these four are taking the bullet for the board but that’s how the system is set up to work.
What’s the timeline for the mayor to re-appoint?
The existing members serve until the council approves new members. I don’t believe there is any timeline prescribed by statute or ordinance, but I’d have to check to be sure.
Posted by Owen on May 19, 2009 at 1241 hrs
As I understand it, the council has virtually no oversight authority over the Library Board other than appointing its members. If they don’t like what the Library Board is doing, their recourse is to change the board membership.
I think they could at least write a resolution or censure or something. Granted, that doesn’t have teeth, but it at least addresses the issue on its own instead of tying it to a personnel matter.
How does that make them any more qualified to serve on the Library Board than other people? I would certainly say that all of them ARE qualified, but that doesn’t mean that someone else isn’t also qualified.
Of course others may be qualified, but I think we’d agree that someone who has already been on the board is more qualified than someone who hasn’t. That said, if the incumbents have been slugs most or all of their time on the board, by all means dump them and get some new blood in there. But if they have served well, it’s a shame that one recent issue scotched their reappointments.
And isn’t it true that the current board was inactive on the issue because that was the advice of the City Attorney? Should all boards and committees not follow the CA’s legal advice now? That’s another message the council sent with this vote.
If there’s no deadline, I’m sure the mayor is in no big hurry to replace the members she recommended for reappointment!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 19, 2009 at 1302 hrs
I think we’d agree that someone who has already been on the board is more qualified than someone who hasn’t.
We agree to a point, but if the opinion of the council is that the members of the Library Board have been unresponsive - despite their qualifications - then it is entirely appropriate for the council to look for other people to serve. Tenure, of and by itself, is not a qualification.
And isn’t it true that the current board was inactive on the issue because that was the advice of the City Attorney?
Sort of, but here we run into a separate issue. The City Attorney advises the board. She does not direct their actions. They are perfectly free to make up their own mind and act. In this particular case, I think the advise of the City Attorney was extremely iffy and I would have rejected it. I see this in business too and it’s very much a matter of culture. Some businesses live and die by the advice of lawyers. Some merely take that advice into account as part of a larger decision making process. Remember that advice is not a directive and the duly appointed or elected people are responsible to make up their own minds.
If there’s no deadline, I’m sure the mayor is in no big hurry to replace the members she recommended for reappointment!
Nope. So the practical reality is that the council sent a message, but it doesn’t really change a thing. So those who have their panties in a wad over the council’s vote are misdirecting their ire
Posted by Owen on May 19, 2009 at 1505 hrs
Tenure, of and by itself, is not a qualification.
Of course it’s not. Knowledge of the institution is, though. And again, it appears the council ousted these four based on one recent highly charged issue and only that, when it could have sent them back to deal with it. (Well, it HAS sent them back to deal with it, if only for the time being.) In any case, their individual job performances didn’t count for squat in the council’s vote, and that’s wrong.
As for the legal counsel, iffy or not, do the council members take the CA’s advice? I suspect in most cases they do, so for the council to punish library board members for doing so is hypocritical. If the council has a gripe with the CA’s opinion, let them address it with the CA. For that matter, let them address their gripe against the library board with the whole library board, and the director too.
I can’t speak for the twisted-panty crowd, but I suspect the only reason the council got involved in this at all is because they saw a chance to do some grandstanding. It certainly didn’t help matters any.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 19, 2009 at 1611 hrs
Knowledge of the institution is, though.
Depends… as I said, the whole purpose of a board made up of members of the community is that they reflect the views of the community - not the so-called “experts.” There’s a place for expert leadership and there’s a place for layman oversight.
it appears the council ousted these four based on one recent highly charged issue
So? First off, they didn’t “oust” them. They were up for being reappointed according to the normal schedule. It wasn’t as if they were removed from the board. Second, many many many people have been removed from their positions after one bonehead decision. That’s life.
do the council members take the CA’s advice? I suspect in most cases they do, so for the council to punish library board members for doing so is hypocritical
Immaterial. I suspect that they do take the advice of council most of the time, but that does not obligate them to always do so. We elect these folks to make rational, informed decisions - not be a rubber stamp to the bureaucrats who advise them.
let them address their gripe against the library board with the whole library board
Again, how? They can appoint members of the board but don’t really have any authority to serve as a direct oversight authority. If anyone is suggesting that the council act outside of its area of responsibility, it’s you.
Posted by Owen on May 19, 2009 at 1647 hrs
Regardless what you think of the outcome, how certain members of the city council behaved last night is shameful and irresponsible. Details here.
Posted by concerned.west.bend.citizen@gmail.com on May 19, 2009 at 2315 hrs
“Terry Vrana should be recalled for calling the library a porn shop.”
Terry was against the building of the library, er, porn shop, in the first place. Terry has never acquired a library card. By the way, ask the city council members: “Who of you has a library card?” This question could be posed to the new library board member applicants too. I’d follow with “How long have you had a card?”, “How often do you go the the library?”, and “What was the last two books you read and when?” Actually, it’s not really an important qualification for any city or library board member to actually have a library card or read. It’s actually an unfair question for the city council members who voted against lib board reappointments since the majority have not read a full length novel since Shogun. Yes, illiteracy and lack of formal education should bar no appointees to any board because Ginny has, without a doubt, proven that a book, especially sexually explicit books, will corrupt a soul beyond redemption: Ginny is still affected from seeing the titles, cutting and pasting the excerpts, and reading the nastiness to a crowd! Just ask the next prego-teen you see which library book she read that inspired her present state; I’m sure one of those pregos (that somehow had just enough morality to not get an abortion) will cite some title from Ginny’s list she read just over nine months back. Speaking of which, I just finished Where the Wild Things Are, and I feel inspired to tell off my mom.Ban Sendack’s Chicken and Rice! It’s sexually explicit!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 19, 2009 at 2334 hrs
We elect these folks to make rational, informed decisions
Well, they failed that! See the quote that library=porn shop.
If anyone is suggesting that the council act outside of its area of responsibility, it’s you.
Not quite. I’m saying if they must meddle (and with constituents griping at them, they feel they must), they should do so fairly, with all the relevant parties, not just vent at the few for frustrations with the whole body. What sense does that make? None. What does that resolve? Nothing. Irrational. It was the wrong time and place to address the current disagreement, but you insist it was the only way the council could.
Since the aldermen vote to confirm, couldn’t they also vote to recall? Or vote to demand an explanation of board actions/inactions? I’m genuinely asking here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 20, 2009 at 0830 hrs
#1 “Since the aldermen vote to confirm, couldn’t they also vote to recall?” See #2
#2 “Or vote to demand an explanation of board actions/inactions?”
This would be logical.
The board did not act on Ginny’s three complaint because the 1st changed to the 2nd, and the 2nd changed to the third. A moving, organic complaint cannot be resolved. Ginny changed #1 because the gay materials complaint would fail. The sexually explicit complaint (#2) was changed by Ginny after exploring the advice of outside parties like safelibraries.org. The Silverbrook meeting was avoided by the library board at the advice of the city attorney. Ginny said no to a planned meeting at East HS auditorium because it didn’t meet her schedule and she was shifting from complaint #1 to #2. Ginny has been always been the first to kick the can farther down the road; the board has always been trying to catch up. The whole time, Ginny (and her supporters) call foul on the board using straw man arguments, red herrings, sweeping generalizations, and other logical fallacies that the board does not respond to due to the attorney’s advice. See Barbara Deters’ comment in the West Bend Daily News following Vrana’s porn shop comment: She spells out the reasons for the delays.
Warning to conservatives: Ginny is the troublemaker, and she will follow this performance with another one. Be careful speaking publicly against her. She will quite effectively use her website and followers against an easily deceived, non-reading, forgetful populace to take you out.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 21, 2009 at 1908 hrs
Bob, is the best you can do is sling mud? Grow up.
Posted by GAMazy on May 22, 2009 at 1058 hrs
Bob said, “The sexually explicit complaint (#2) was changed by Ginny after exploring the advice of outside parties like safelibraries.org.” Now that I’ve been brought into this conversation, let me say this:
If there’s any “politicization of the library board,” it’s a board that’s responsive to the ALA and not the citizens.
The board refused to act. It refused to address the concerns solicited from a citizen under its own policy. It refused to comply with its own policy.
The government is right to oust the people who refuse to comply with their own policy. The government ousted the people pursuant to the proper exercise of governmental powers. New people will be appointed who will, it is hoped, finally comply with the policy and finally respond substantially to the citizen’s complaint.
The government is perfectly within its rights to act as it has. The government was given the right of appointment and reappointment for precisely this purpose. It has acted justly.
The only “politicization” going on here was a board responsive to an out-of-town organization that cares absolutely nothing for your local laws, your local customs, and your local citizens. The board dragged its feet. Indeed the request for reconsideration is still outstanding after months. Like the Energizer Bunny, it keeps going and going. The board should have addressed it long ago.
The response is so long overdue that people are talking like it doesn’t even exist:
“These were four very qualified people who collectively have a lot of experience on these issues,” says library director Michael Tyree about the board members who were up for reappointment. “They were doing what they were supposed to do—wait for the Maziarkas to resubmit their reconsideration for library materials.” See “West Bend City Council Fails to Reinstate Library Board Members,” by Debra Lau Whelan, School Library Journal, 20 May 2009. The library decided on its own to drop it, now it claims it is waiting for resubmission. And the government isn’t supposed to oust these people?
The board’s last action was to issue a statement that it may never get around to responding as it should under its own policy. The government was forced to act under the circumstances to a board that was so “politicized” that it boldly stated it would refuse to respond to a request brought under its own policy.
That’s what is really the problem here. That’s why people are so desperate to make it appear like this is the government’s problem when it is really the board’s own internal problem borne by its adherence to out-of-state policies.
Had the board acted one way or another, this would not have happened. It’s the board’s own fault. Don’t blame the government for refusing to reappoint people who refused to comply with their own policies
Posted by Dan Kleinman on May 23, 2009 at 0019 hrs
Bob said, “Be careful speaking publicly against her. She will quite effectively use her website and followers against an easily deceived, non-reading, forgetful populace to take you out.”
That ad hominem argument is simple false. Right on her own blog (here) I pointed out where I thought she went wrong: “Comments such as those by Mark Peterson ought to be applauded. Sure, point out how and why he is wrong, but I suggest being nicer to him.”
She did not “take me out.” Rather, she changed her ways: “I have had some time to think about the Peterson column. While I disagree strongly with Mark, and there is some misinformation in his statements, I think SafeL. is correct in his statement. .... My apologies to Mark for the harsh criticism, and I will now rewrite my commentary to reflect my sincerity.”
Bob, your mischaracterization of her shows you really have no substantive grounds for allowing children access to inappropriate material despite the availability of legal means to stop it.
Posted by Dan Kleinman on May 23, 2009 at 0033 hrs
The library has no “inappropriate material” for children. This is mainly about eliminating the “gay” books by removing the sexually explicit books that have been taken out of context by quoting specific lines that arouse Puritan sentiment, which I could do with several hundred books in the unroped off adult section of the library. Dan, some story plots require graphic honesty because the young adults are not naive and they do not regard highly glossing over the hard truths. I acknowledge one would have to actually read the books to get understand, and I acknowledge some authors of books for children and adults are gratuitous. Remember Dan, Ginny was the one against the district harassment policy not because it protected religious preference or the handicapped, but because she argued the district promoted/condoned homosexuality because the harassment clause specified sexual preference. Which leaves me wondering how people like her view hermaphrodites: Can we allow books addressing hermaphrodites in the YA section? Are they allowed to have relationships? Do they get to swing 50/50? How do we find books to balance a collection with hermaphrodite books? Are there books where people renounce their hermaphroditism? Yea, this is obnoxious, but these are valid questions to lead to the premise that if nature/god creates a 50/50 and we are all children of god, then perhaps god /nature is responsible for some other minorities, and these minorities get some representation in all areas of the library: gay, straight, black, Indian, fundamentalist Christian, etc.
And whoever out there is accusing the librarians of forcing sexually explicit books on kids, I am still waiting for documentation.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 23, 2009 at 1655 hrs
“Bob, your mischaracterization of her shows you really have no substantive grounds for allowing children access to inappropriate material despite the availability of legal means to stop it.”
Dan, Ginny (and no one against the book titles in Ginny’s 1st or 2nd complaint) has provided any proof that a child who read the books was ever harmed by the books. No harm, no foul. This is not pornography that we are talking about.
And has anyone asked the young adult students what they think? If a book offends their sensibilities, they stop reading it, like adults.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 24, 2009 at 0622 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 121
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/12/2012 07:17 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).