Viewpoint: Many red flags
By Darla Meyers, town of St. Joseph
Only two weeks after the Hudson Star Observer celebrated "Sunshine Week," a celebration of the right to open government, there was a chilling letter to the editor that underscores why our right to open government and open records requests are under threat. A writer wrote: "...The continued criticism comes from the same people with the citizens group who waste untold dollars in constant requests for documentation from our public institutions. This is a burden that might be invisible but is a real cost to the city. ..."
What the writer didn't mention is that he, also, made use of the open records laws. And he didn't mention that the open records documents come with a price to the individual requesting those documents. The taxpayer pays for the government to be in "business," and the taxpayer pays to have the "privilege" to have access to those documents. Is the writer afraid of what might be discovered in those open records documents?
The writer also states: "...In several exchanges with members of the Citizens for the St. Croix Valley, there has been an accusation that we are proposing that Hudson become a sanctuary city. This is simply not true. We have never had this discussion nor is it on our agenda for the future. ..." The so-called Inclusion Resolution, submitted to the Hudson Common Council for approval, but denied, stated: "...WHEREAS, the City of Hudson is proud to protect the civil rights and liberties of all of its residents, and to partner with community leaders to create equal opportunities and a safe city for all. ..." (my emphasis)
The Hudson Common Council City Attorney commented there is a right to be concerned about the "safe city" designation by stating: "... There's other, just questions, I have. What does it mean to create equal opportunities. We have a system of hiring based on merit, ability, qualifications. Creating sounds like something more than that with respect to the different classifications of people. I, myself, had the question when I read the resolution is safe city for all. It doesn't say sanctuary city, but it raises the question of will that be an ordinance that is proposed then as a means of implementing this resolution, and if so, that has consequences on the city. I'm not sure if it's been passed but there's legislation at the state level penalizing municipalities and governmental entities that adopt sanctuary city ordinances, and there is discussion at the federal level with respect to DOJ Department of Justice grants and so forth that they will be withheld. It's discussion at this point, but, and I don't know what our police department gets, but that would have an impact on the city. ..."
The writer continues: "... We have also been framed as wasting taxpayer money in promoting that the City of Hudson join the National League of Cities. The fact is that we were willing to pay for the first year, $1,500 membership fee, but the City Council felt that it would be more appropriate to be paid for by taxpayers. ..." What the writer didn't say is that the GoFund Me Page for this membership fell way short to only $925 of the $2,000 goal, and then backed off to $875 when, presumably, someone wanted their money back because the taxpayer would now pay for the membership. Did they have another funding source?
There are many red flags on the local, state and federal level to indicate that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are in jeopardy. Here are two headline examples: "Brown County Board Candidate tried to erase public input"; and "Wisconsin Assembly Democrat unveils roadmap to permanently change Constitution." Go to www.citizensforthestcroixvalley.com for links to these articles, the city attorney comments, and a True and False Q&A on the continuing threats to our Constitutional Republic.