THERE IS NO "BUT"...

It was appalling to me as a citizen to hear former Commissioner and current Supervisor Butch Hansen (your public official) say during the December Town Board meeting under "Citizen Business" that he is "in favor of free speech," but in the next breath tell the Board that this blog "has got to stop."

He also said at that public meeting while in his Supervisor role that the blog is full of "slander and lies."

Now, Mr. Hansen likes to say to other Supervisors in what I would characterize as an ominous and warning tone that they "had better be careful" what they say at public meetings. (He actually did that TWICE at the January 8th Board meeting. Listen to the disc.)


Where was his inner voice telling himself that when he stated that this blog is full of slander and lies, I wonder? It's simply not true. Saying something of that nature is perhaps not a good idea for any public official, even if it could be substantiated, which this cannot! So it appears others are to "be very careful" what they say, but he doesn't get it that he does not have free rein to smear someone himself.


Also during the December Board meeting "Citizen Business" item former Commissioner/former Supervisor Mark Ceminsky (your former public official) stated in referring to this blog, "I know it's free speech, but this has got to stop."

Outside of something like the oft-cited yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, I don't believe there IS a BUT, Mr. Ceminsky! Why do you think this country has the right to Free Expression? Just to make sure you like what you hear? You don't have to like what you read here. I still have the right to say it and inform the public about what is happening at THEIR public meetings.

This is reminiscent of the time Ceminsky was on the Board and he objected to citizens obtaining copies of the recorded meeting discs even though they are entitled to under the Data Practices Law. When the attorney informed the Board they have no right to prevent this while the disc is still in existence (before minutes approval), the next Ceminsky suggestion was to charge citizens $5 a disc, with only one meeting copied per disc instead of the full month's meetings on one disc as was the existing practice.

However, as I represented to the Board at the time:
1) An entire month's meetings can easily fit on one disc.
2) It takes very little time for the clerk to make a copy of the discs.
3) The Township is not allowed to make money providing this public information to its citizens.

Eventually I did receive my disc requests, but not without a struggle. This whole discussion at that Board meeting did not seem very citizen-friendly to me. Why would this have been a problem since this was the established practice with earlier Boards when others were on them? More information is good, no? WHY try to stop this? (Under Ceminsky's "plan," which failed, if a month had two regular meetings, one special meeting, and a public hearing, a citizen would have to pay $20.00 to receive copies of the discs?! Again, why?)


Back to the blog, if you do not want reported what you say at a public meeting where there is NO presumption of privacy, then simply DON'T SAY IT! Better yet, how about saying something instead that is positive and beneficial to the Township? Put your energy into that.

I AM allowed to criticize and inform about what happens at public meetings. So, Reader, are you! I am proud to live in a country that guarantees that government cannot stop me from such expression. Goodness knows, Mr. Ceminsky has certainly not been shy about being very critical at many meetings of late, so why doesn't that apply to all?

Thankfully, the four Supervisors who make up the rest of the Town Board have a better understanding of citizens' rights!!!!!

What is of particular note to me is that these repeated attempts to stifle this voice have been met with explanations as to why this is not possible (read constitutional), yet these individuals still keep trying and trying. What happens to your right to freedom of expression if the other four Supervisors (or a majority of the Board at any time) do not understand this? Would you actually have to go to court to receive your freedoms? The non-absorption of this issue by Hansen and Ceminsky is very troublesome in my opinion.