Hot time in Jefferson tonight
A forum in Jefferson tonight, featuring Alderman Dave Olsen, who faces a recall for voting against a Wal-Mart site annexation, and his opponent. The election is Tuesday. Forum details. Earlier post.
One nation under Wal-Mart
If Wal-Mart were a nation, it would be one of the world's top 20 economies. There are now nearly 5,000 stores worldwide, over 3,500 in the U.S. A new Wal-Mart SuperCenter opens every 38 hours; with yearly sales of $288 billion, Wal-Mart employs one of every 115 workers in America. Wal-Mart has an enormous influence on all facets of business -- manufacturing, trade, communications, transportation, design, you name it. But as journalist John Dicker describes in his first book, The United States of Wal-Mart (Jeremy P. Tarcher), the backlash -- from citizens, workers, unions and governments -- has begun.
Here's an AlterNet interview with Dicker.
posted by xoff @ 9:17 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
I tell ya, you're being duped, and so are many others. What makes you think Olsen is opposed to Wal-Mart?
I quote from last night's Daily Union, a local paper: "Since he took office, Olsen has come out as an opponent of the Supercenter plan in Jefferson, at least at the current proposed site."
I challenge anyone to show me where Olsen has stated his reasons for opposing Wal-Mart. All he says is that he's "a man of the people" and right now, people are telling him they don't want it. The vast majority of anti-Wal-Mart people are opposed to Wal-Mart on principle - against low wages, what they believe it does to small towns, etc.
Olsen, however, has pitched this recall and election as Olsen v. Wal-Mart, David v. Goliath. He's eager to solicit the support, volunteer efforts and cash of the anti-Wal-Mart crowd, who mistakenly believes that Olsen is opposed to Wal-Mart on principle.
I firmly believe that Olsen will happily change his vote given miniscule changes in location, siting or other bones that Wal-Mart might throw the City's way.
Do you think Olsen has been purposefully misrepresenting his position in order to prevent being drummed out of office?
I see him going to great effort to secure the support of people like you, Bill, as well as the Wisconsin AFL-CIO, who sent out an email on his behalf with their president David Newby's email address, although it was signed by "Kathy". The Stoughton anti-Wal-Mart group sent a similar email this week, too.
Has Olsen ever explained to you whether he's just "anti this site" or anti-Wal-Mart on principle? Do you think the AFL-CIO or Stoughton's activists would as eagerly support him if they knew he'd vote for Wal-Mart if they tweaked the traffic flow or gave the city another playground?
Please visit my opinion page or my Wal-Mart page for more fun details, like the way that Ald. Olsen filed a police complaint a few weeks ago against a fellow alder because she called him a "f**king liar" at a bar after a Council meeting. Our tax dollars at work.
I hardly feel I have been duped. Dave Olsen didn't come to me for help. I read about the recall and contacted him. As I explained in my very first post about this, I have known Dave for almost 20 years and consider him a friend. If he's opposed to Wal-Mart that;s a bonus. My objection is to him being railroaded on some phony "open meetings" charges when the recall is really all about Wal-Mart. If he's for it at some other site, I don't care.
As you can see by the circus in Pewaukee, the "reason" slot on a recall petition can contain any garbage the petitioners would like. Similarly, they're free to say anything they like when they go door-to-door with the petition, too. That's free speech, ne?
No one took the open meeting violation complaints seriously apart from Dave Olsen. At best, the incident only demonstrated that 1) our Council doesn't follow Robert's Rules except when it wants to, 2) Olsen is always eager to derail a meeting to make the Mayor look bad (and that incident wasn't the first time), and 3) the Mayor and the Council didn't have the knowledge or the guts to intervene when Olsen did it.
His claim at the time was that Robert's Rules (RR) allowed him to "yield his time" to the public; I defy anyone to show me chapter and verse that allows that.
And if you think Open Records/Open Meetings case law is arcane, try making sense of the heady blend of RR and OR/OM law. The statutes trump RR, but there are contradictions.
I think we can all agree that the spirit of the Open Meetings law says that an agenda should reflect what the public should expect to happen at a meeting. If it doesn't say public participation, should you expect that you'll have a chance to speak? Where's the fine line between a Council member asking an apropos question of an audience member versus derailing a meeting to allow the assembled mob to speak? Who is supposed to be in charge?
The problem here is similar to Pewaukee in other ways, too. Small-town Councils run by the seat of their pants, and there's always going to be a tussle to determine who gets to set the agenda items and in what order. Has Olsen ever stepped forward to clarify this for our town? Of course not. It's far more fun for him to cow the rest of the Council with imagined provisions of RR and OM/OR law.
What if I ran the zoo? Clearly it's useful and downright necessary for the Council to ask a non-body audience member a question now and then. Informally, this happens quickly with a called-out question and an answer. More formally, perhaps the question should be directed to the Mayor (as leader of the meeting) and then asked of the audience member. Of course, if a Council objects, it should proceed to a motion, discussion and vote if the questioning gets out of line.
At his "media conference" a few months ago, Olsen freely admitted to violating Open Meetings law during the secret strategic planning sessions held last fall by the City. He blamed the City Admin and Attorney, but OM law doesn't fine them, it fines the elected and appointed participants.
The petitioners' recall "reason" only stated that he had violated OM law. It wasn't specific. It was only in the press later on that they were quoted as referring to the "yield my time" incident. They are aware of the other admitted violation, of course.
Guess which incident Olsen trumpets? After the DA dismissed the feeble complaint, I believe Olsen's words were "This shows that I've never done anything wrong." Wow, such conviction should lead to sainthood. I'll be happy to be the advocatus diaboli.
I just looked over Olsen's pre-election disclosures. Bill, with your $100 contribution on 8/19 to Olsen's campaign, you're in his top five.
Is that the "Darkside Patriots" level where you get the signed, autographed picture? :-)
You said "If he's for [Wal-Mart] at some other site, I don't care." I thought this was David v. Goliath and you wanted David to win? Goliath swings, takes second base!
Post a Comment
<< Home