Where You Can Park Your Politics in Wauwatosa
Political expression is prohibited in Hart Park, except for where it's not, and except if somebody decides maybe it isn't.
A crowd estimated at 3,000 showed up to for a pro-Walker rally Jan. 21 at Hart Park.
Rory Linnane
Photos (1)
Photos
Sometimes the news arrives in strange packages. In the case of a behind-the-scenes controversy delivered to me last week, it was as full of surprises as a set of Russian nesting dolls.
The subject, wouldn't you know, was politics.
I was treated to a real-time exercise in civic sausage-making when I was blind-copied on a lengthy exchange of e-mails between a number of public officials, some elected, some appointed.
Because I was, in effect, eavesdropping, I will leave out most of the names involved. But I think the subject is of public interest and the questions ought to be discussed in the open.
It began with a challenge from an alderperson to the city attorney, Alan Kesner (I don't mind naming Kesner because he agreed to discuss it with me and he doesn't make policy, he only advises on it and interprets it).
What business, the alder wanted to know, did the city have in issuing a permit to Onward Wisconsin to hold its Celebrate Walker rally in Hart Park on Jan. 21 when park policy prohibits political events?
This was news to me. Since when, and why, I thought, does Wauwatosa prohibit political speech in its premier public space?
And it's true – sort of. Political events are not allowed "except by special consent."
We'll get back to that in a minute.
Kesner's initial reply provided a new twist. By park rules, political events are not permitted in the (except by that special consent), but they are allowed at the Rotary Performance Pavilion and surrounding amphitheater – because Tosa Tonight has a contract to schedule and manage events there and it has no such prohibition of political events.
Another official weighed in to say that while that was true, it had been a mistake to issue Onward Wisconsin a permit that extended beyond the amphitheater all the way to North 72nd Street.
This official suggested that the city would issue one more permit "to the other side" upon request, just to be fair, and then would firmly return to its position of "neutrality" in the parks.
At about this point, I called Kesner and asked what in the world was going on.
Kesner said he had been unaware of the extension of the permit to 72nd Street, and had he been aware of it he would have recommended denial of that extension. He also said that the public official who was offering a freebie to the political left did not have the authority to do so.
What I really wanted to know was: Who does have the authority to allow political events by their "special consent"?
"I frankly don't know," Kesner said, "because the question has never come up before."
Within a quarter of an hour, he had done his research and rendered an opinion.
"For the time being," he said, "it appears that special consent rests with the Parks Board, although the Common Council could also give it."
Yet another revelation. The Board of Parks and Forestry Commissioners can grant special consent to allow a political event even though its authority is mainly advisory.
Kesner rendered his opinion in a final e-mail message to all concerned and concluded by asking that no more responses be forthcoming because the online free-for-all was getting to a point where it risked breaking open meetings laws.
As I said, Kesner is blameless in all this. He's just telling it like it is.
One wonders, though, what the creators of that rule in some bygone day were thinking – or drinking.
For starters: A rule prohibiting political expression in a public park seems to me to contradict two of the four provisions of the First Amendment; i.e., the rights to speech and to assembly.
And the "special consent" clause seems to open up this already constitutionally questionable decree to invitations of abuse of powers by preferential treatment.
(One might even ask, since the city sees fit to do away with half the First Amendment, why does it not go whole hog and ban religious events and petitioning in the park? Have we not had some issues lately around the right to petition?)
Then there is the question of why, having in place a policy - questionable as it may be - the city would then relinquish its authority to a private entity for part of the park only?
Tosa Tonight is a fine organization, and it is a pleasure and privilege to have it provide the city with entertainment in an enchanting atmosphere. And, by the way, good for Tosa Tonight for not banning free speech at its venue, even though it could.
But the pavilion and amphitheater are still public property. Why does the city in turn abrogate responsibility for a matter as important as free speech and assembly in that public space alone? And what if Tosa Tonight – and I'm not saying it would – decided to allow only political speech with which "it" agreed?
I have been conducting an informal poll the past few days, posing all this to various people. The cocked eyebrows and expressions of "Wha...?" speak for themselves.
Nobody understands why Wauwatosa, of all places, should proscribe the First Amendment. Nobody understands why that proscription, however crazy, should be lifted for part of the park only under private authority. Nobody understands why some appointed officials on a purely advisory board should have the power to overrule the kooky policy and give special consent to political speech of their choice.
I get this scene playing out in my mind. The Minutemen are marshaling at Lexington green to meet the Redcoats. A fat burgher waddles out and says, "Ye are nay permitted hereupon the practice of Politicks without mine own special consent, and I give it not. Now, begone!"
Where would we be without free speech and assembly in public places? On Lexington green, on Boston Common, on the National Mall in Washington, on Capitol Square in Madison?
The answer is, we would not be as we are. America would be something else, and something much less.
Wauwatosa, in claiming political neutrality by banning political speech – except for just those to whom someone desires to give it – both neuters the concept of free speech and then in turn politicizes it.
Both strike me as bad ideas.
Noelle Lorraine
3:24 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012
Wow. Nice piece. Great work. Precisely the reason the patch is our #1 source for the news. I wanted to be the first to comment quickly but I have more to validate my stand later on today when I get in front of my computer!
Paris Procopis
3:32 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012
Amen brother!!!
Paris Procopis
3:34 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012
Anyone has the right. Besides first amenendment issues, prohibiting access can also be descriminatory.
RicanPrincess1
3:40 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012
Amen!
RicanPrincess1
4:11 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012
To those voting on the poll that political events should not be allowed in the parks, 2 things: 1) Be careful; next thing you know, government will be prohibiting much, much more; 2) Then the prohibition should be for all groups, at all public venues.
Ed Willing
4:29 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012
This was exactly the kind of hyper local news that makes Patch an important, investigative source in the vacuum that is our local news these days.
Thank you Jim, for this. It will get the community more involved.
Tracy Janecek
4:32 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012
Holy crap, this is what's important these days to some of our appointed representatives? Bueller.. Bueller.. Bueller... Bueller
Bob
4:33 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012
JIm, I don't understand why you don't reveal the names of those involved in the e-mail exchange. All of the e-mails are public records, and you just happened to receive them without asking first. In fact, you should post a link to all of them in the paper. This becomes even more important if the exchanges skirt open meetings regulations. I hope you look into that as well.
Jim Price
5:01 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012
Bob, the e-mails are public record, but this was not a policy-making discussion, it was just a policy-clarifying discussion, and I fear it could have rather a "chilling effect" on my reporting ability if I revealed who was blind-copying me on such conversations. I would have to file an open records request of my own to know who all was taking part, since I don't know that I was privy to all messages and replies (I'm pretty sure I wasn't). The point, to me, was not who was having the discussion but the unusual subject of it – the policies themselves.
Tracy Janecek
4:35 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012
File an open records request Bob. Jim is a reporter and mind you a good one for not revealing his sources!
Bob
4:58 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012
I agree Jim is a good reporter. I enjoy reading his articles. But he uses the word "eavesdropping," as if he were listening in on a private conversation. Public officials can't have private conversations via e-mail. I suppose his source could have asked to not be revealed, but Jim doesn't say whether that is the case or not. But you are correct, any citizen can now ask for copies of the e-mails via an open records request.
Cynthia
4:39 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012
Thank You Jim for another nice piece. Once again 'Patch' leads the way on information to the public.
Paris Procopis
4:58 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012
Jim is doing his job!
Bob
5:08 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012
Jim, Thanks for the reply. Keep up the good work. (And keep an eye on the open meetings rules for us.)
Noelle Lorraine
6:18 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012
Jim, it's clear you have many 'fans' of your great work. I've asked all my fine conservative comrades to shear the link to this & they've done exactly that. Without you, we wouldn't have fair media coverage at all. You are one of the select few that is brave enough to not tuck themselves neatly into the liberal pocket. You are fearless and objective , even in as an editorial voice. Keep up the good work Jim!
jbw
7:25 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012
We do need to have some kind of permitting process for any event that plans to take over the park for a day, don't we? Both to avoid conflicts between events and insure that the rest of the public is not denied access.
The reason for restricting such a right is generally to counteract abuse of said right. Sadly, many people choose to abuse the freedoms they enjoy to harm or impinge upon the rights of others. And so in practice we strike a middle ground that gives rise to things like a representative government that can protect minorities from the actions of a simple democratic majority.
I would venture to guess that these haphazard ordinances were the result of short term focused pragmatism, not some sort of conspiracy to subvert federal law. It doesn't surprise me that our political parties would attempt to use such technicalities to sabotage plans or attack each other because these fervent partisans are the chief abusers of every right, which they hold so dear until the ends justify the means.
Tim
7:45 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012
Looks like another lawsuit opportunity for the ACLU. I wonder if the city corporation counsel knew about this. An amazing violation of fisrt amendment rights, except of course for the Scott Walker supporters who were allowed to have a rally there.
Timtohey
Tracy Janecek
8:59 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012
@Tim, You were more than welcome to come and observe. There were no restrictions unless you were there to cause a disturbance and in that case, you would have been asked to leave. Hell, Graham-Cracker even had two walk throughs and wasn't asked to leave. He left on his own.
Cynthia
11:04 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012
democrats and liberals were invited to attend as long as they did not cause a disturbance.... I suppose you missed that coverage.... as usual you don't follow what's going on.
Noelle Lorraine
7:52 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012
*share your link versus shear your link.
Paris Procopis
8:45 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012
There were no rights infringed on! A group rented the space and had the permit to do so, if the other side wants to rent the same space another time, they should. Neither side should be prohibited from holding a rally there because the US Constitution trumps all! The Alderperson in question is just probably receiving pressure from the Unions because the rally was a raving success and took away news coverage from the their precious submission of the Recall signatures. The Unions are angry this happened on her watch. There is no ACLU standing to sue here, as the other side has not tried and been denied anything! This is just the case of a Wauwatosa Liberal having a temper tantrum!
Paris Procopis
8:47 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012
There is a permitting process in place, $150 per picnic site. They were available, and we reserved them. As for the pavillion, it is a private entity that runs it. THe contract was with them :)
Paris Procopis
8:48 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012
If there is an ordinance prohibiting political gatherings in a public park, it goes against the First amendment.
Bucky
5:56 am on Monday, January 30, 2012
Jim if I may say, you are Tosa's " Lil Jimmy Olson " Great Job ! Look ! Up in the Sky !
Its a Bird ... It's a Plane ... No it's a ... RECALL WALKER BANNER !
Tracy Janecek
6:45 am on Monday, January 30, 2012
What's that you say????? We don't speak air horn or drum.
Bucky
7:21 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012
Tracy ... Still time to get your G.E.D.
Jim Price
8:51 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012
Bucky, I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say, but I think maybe you're trying to say that I'm ignoring or overlooking the recall. I would invite you to go back to November when the Recall Walker folks dialed up a rally here in Tosa. I believe I covered it every bit as thoroughly. I broke the stories on both rallies, and followed up with features and day-of coverage in each case. I took heat from some pro-Walker folks for having done a feature on a retired Lutheran minister who lives in Scott Walker's block but opened up his home to recall people. This time, I did a feature on a 16-year-old who was scheduled to speak for the conservatives and took some heat from the other side on that. On both days, I spent an equal amount of time outdoors in the cold – about seven or eight hours in each case – in November I caught pneumonia covering the recall rally. It wasn't fun. It was work. And it's work whether I'm covering one side or the other. You can surely make fun of "Jimmy Olson." You couldn't begin to do the work.
Bucky
4:20 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
On the contrary Jim ... I think your a fine reporter. " As far as I not being able to do the work " I have worked since I was 12 years old, 60 years old next month , 38 years with my current employer 8 hours a day, 6 to 7 days a week. Some days awhile back were 16 hours a day others now average 12. All work consisting of manual labor, as some would refer to as grunt work and yet on the other hand many people say that I have excellent penmanship. I think that as an editor that you are doing an excellent job !
Keith Schmitz
6:02 am on Monday, January 30, 2012
As much as I didn't like the purpose of the rally it still should be allowed to take place in the park. With shopping centers banning petition circulators even in the parking lots, along with other restrictions, the amount of public space for these events is shrinking.
Free speech is not free if people have to pay for spaces to express. Every has a right to those spaces.
Stephanie Purvis
9:55 am on Monday, January 30, 2012
Agreed. Neutrality means you don't discriminate, not eliminate.
Paris Procopis
4:05 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012
Keith, even though we have different views, I will gladly stand shoulder to shoulder with you to defend the First Amendment!
Santo Ingrilli
8:01 am on Monday, January 30, 2012
Facts: a group of pr Walker supporters worked their butt's off to put on a first class event in the heart of Tosa. Nobody rights were infringed on as the protesters were allowed to do their thing as well. The event goers by all accounts behaved well, spent money in the village, and left the venue in better shape than it was before they got there. Let's also keep in mind the event coordinators also set up shuttle service to relieve traffic congestion. I would think the local businesses would love another 4,000 people descend upon Tosa, regardless of the reason........
Marlene Giese
1:57 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012
Really, 4000, really? I heard it was a lot less than that!
RicanPrincess1
7:32 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012
Marlene, were you there? Nah, of course not...
Paris Procopis
8:22 am on Monday, January 30, 2012
Keith, even though we have different views, I will gladly stand shoulder to shoulder with you to defend the First Amendment!
paul
4:00 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012
I'm not a big fan of Onward Wisconsin and I don't think that political front groups funded by out of state corporations and millionaires should be allowed to fund operations in Wisconsin in any venue whatsoever.
But I think that our public parks should be available to Wisconsin citizens of all stripes to peacefully express their political viewpoints.
Paris Procopis
4:08 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012
Paul, what millionaires funded Nward Wisconsin? Fact is, none did! Please get your facts straight before making comments like that! Our average donation was about $30 from everyday people like you and I. I whole heartedly agree with your last sentence! :)
Marlene Giese
5:03 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012
Paul, I don't think you meant that out of state corporations and millionaires funded Onward Wisconsin, but you did put both in the same sentence. I believe that NO politician should be able to get more than $50 from any one person AND that anyone donating to a political fund in Wisconsin NEEDS to LIVE in Wisconsin. Maybe we could do away with the SuperPac which has been funding some of Walker's campaign ads. Also, that would limit that guy in Texas from donating $500,000 to Walker's campaign. But, like you, I believe that public parks should be PUBLIC -- available to WISCONSIN citizens of all stripes to peacefully express their political views.
Paris Procopis
5:14 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012
What about the MILLIONS of Union dollars floating from SEIU, and other Soros backed organizations? Or the KOCH money that went to Democrats? Remember both sides are getting money from out of state. Don't act like the Democrats are clean.
Bucky
7:25 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012
Paris ... blah , blah , blah , ... blah , blah , blah, ... blah , blah ... blah. You are really boring.
Tracy Janecek
8:26 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012
You'd better get off mom & dad's PC Bucky. You do know IP addresses are easily traced & seeing as you've been warned already for the harassment, you'd be best to delete your comments and move along.
Bucky
4:16 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Fact ... Walker will be recalled. Fact ... Walker will not be reelected.
Bucky
5:02 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Tracy you scream horns and drums for the 1st amendment and free speech but when it doesn't fit your agenda then you call it harassment. So you and only you speak of IP address's and want to silence my 1st amendment rights. What a hypocrite.
Paris Procopis
8:28 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012
I know, facts can be boring.
RicanPrincess1
8:52 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012
You know that: their attention is not made to deal with facts. :)
Noelle Lorraine
10:58 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012
As they say, simple minds- simple pleasures. Maybe politics is much to complex for Bucky. It may be best suited if you gear conversation towards something like, oh I don't know, jersey shore? Bucky may not be bored then.
Bucky
4:29 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Noelle , Sometimes people that have simple minds and simple pleasures are the happiest people in the world. Maybe that's why I am so happy.
Bucky
5:02 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Noelle ... As far as the complexity of politics ... the only thing that I would say is if you don't think that politics are complex , then I would say that you that you don't know anything about politics.
Santo Ingrilli
9:43 am on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Once again our friends on the Left prove that they just don't pay attention to the facts. Facts are that there were no super rich rich people behind this event. It was total grassroots and a lot of people worked past exhaustion to pull it off. We even had people bring homemade bakery to sell to help defray costs. Also for my friends worried about outside money, while that wish for no outside money may be a worthy one, you cannot change the game midstream and the truth is there would not even be a recall election if is wasn't for the millions of out of state union dollars sent to Wisconsin.
Marlene Giese
11:25 am on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Santo, you are very adament about facts. Where ared YOUR facts about there not being a recall if it weren't for millions of out of state union dollars? I thought so -- even you, Mr. Make Sure You Have the Facts, are guilty of inserting an opinion into your writing. AND as for not changing the game midstream - didn't the Republicans try to do that by making the recall election follow the NEW redistricting plan and changing the voting laws because they claimed (mistakenly and yes there are facts) that voter fraud was rampent in Wisconsin? Thank goodness for Dale Scholze. He is a breath of fresh air in this whole Republican debacle.
Cynthia
3:51 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
marlene......... do you not pay attention to National news where dems are getting worried and upset because the unions are pumping so much money into the WI recall? They are worried about their 2012 elections and the lack of money going to support obama since the unions are spending so much on trying to block union reform. Good grief do you live under a rock? Have you not seen the large teamster and seiu trucks roll in for every rally? Have you not followed even Madison news?
Cynthia
3:53 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Also marlene........... Why would you have people voting for a Senator that will not even be their Senator in a few months? That does not make sense.. but then you liberals aren't about making sense....
Marlene Giese
6:44 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Cynthia, Where are the FACTS that the Democrats are worried? Worried is an emotion and is very hard to judge. AND who is saying they are worried? Fox News? Oh, that's right, there are palm trees in Madison, WI. According to the National news that I've read, the Republicans are worried because they have not yet found a candidate to beat Obama. As for the large teamster trucks, can you show me an article (unbiased) or a picture of that. I haven't seen them. I've been there. Are the INDIVIDUALS who belong to unions at a rally? Yes! No different than INDIVIDUALS at the rally for Walker supporters. And, I believe like Dale Scholze that the people who elected the Senators should be the ones to send them home!
By the way, you don't have to be rude and accuse me of living under a rock. I just read and listen to different reports than you do. Did you see the study that came out that said that people who listened to Fox News were not as smart about what was going on as people who didn't listen to it?
Cynthia
7:04 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
maralene you can keep hiding under your rock and reading your liberal blogs.... as usual a serving of crow will be fed to you soon.............. As for the teamster and seiu trucks there are tons of pictures on FB with them.... also you can visit a list of tweets thanking these out of state teamsters for coming to Madison simply by searching the #wiunion hashtag. You can see in many pictures from the rally's as early as Feb. 2011 in news articles and YouTube clips with the union trucks in the background........... obviously you just shouted shame from your car in some parking lot ....
Marlene Giese
7:45 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
cynthis, I looked at videos of the protests for over an hour on youtube. I've yet to see a union truck. Please list at least one particular place that I could see a picture of a teamster or a seiu truck at a rally. I only need ONE picture. Are there really any? Also, I'm not really familiar with tweeting, but could you give me the site of one of those. I'd also like to see the other tweets from that person. After all, I have been on Scott Walker's government site, so I'd like to make sure the person that's tweeting is not just trying to fool others. Sorry, I still haven't see the trucks. Oh, I did find the site that told that people who watch Fox News are less informed than those who watch no news at all. I'll try to post it here, but my computer was playing tricks, so don't have it yet! PLEASE stop calling names. Didn't your mother teach you any manners?
Marlene Giese
7:49 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/poll-fox-news-viewers-less-informed-than-those-who-read-no-news.php
For Cynthia: Here's the article I was talking about. How about showing me the pictures, not just saying "Oh, there out there!"
Cynthia
7:57 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
marlene.......... LOL, wow, that is surely truth eh?? Stop reading liberal blogs........ And don't ASSume that I watch FOX........ you make yourself look very irrelevant using your liberal talking points............. ATM I am inputting data for recalls, when I find the time I will look for your links since you are incapable of researching on your own... same with mourning mist....... you remain misinformed because all you read are liberal trash blogs and think they speak the truth. If you were actually at the rally at the Capitol you could not have missed the big teamster semi trailers.......... /just sayin'
Marlene Giese
8:06 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Oh but, Cynthia, I didn't EVER accuse you of reading or watching only FOX. I was intent on presenting the facts -- something you don't seem to be much interested in. Why do you keep being so rude? Is that your only answer when someone asks you to present the facts? I have found in most of my writings that people who really cannot present the facts just call the other side 'irrelevant, incapable, misinformed' -- well, you get the idea. I ask politely if you would show me your facts. Why do you keep being so RUDE???
Cynthia
9:43 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Simple googles marlene........... here is Teamsters 700
http://wn.com/Teamsters_rally
http://www.teamsterslocal700.com/news/2011/030111_WisconsinRally.html
http://teamsternation.blogspot.com/2011/03/teamsters-heading-to-madison.html
Like I said, I am busy entering data for the recalls.......... simple google search marlene you might learn something....
Marlene Giese
8:29 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
I meant they're out there.
Marlene Giese
7:59 am on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
ok. cynthia, so I saw a few trucks at a FEW rallies. But EVERY rally??? Come on, that's like saying that EVERYONE in Wisconsin would vote against Walker. Even I don't believe that. I just believe that MOST people would. Did I learn something. Yes, you don't seem to be able to answer a question without being rude 'Maybe you'll learn something." I'll put my intelligence up against yours ANY DAY. Just because people don't believe the same way you do, that's no reason to think they aren't as intelligent as you are. Enough said????
Cynthia
8:34 am on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
marlene so you don't realize that your comments are rude and condescending? You don't like it when someone proves you wrong? Just open your eyes a wee bit more and stop staying so blind to the hate and rhetoric of the left. I'm sick and tired of all your twisted liberal blog parroting comments...........