Jefferson Banner - Opinion
John Foust - Olsen Recall Petition

On July 6, 2005, a committee calling themselves the "Coalition for the Best Jefferson" filed the EB-1 form and the "Statement of Intent to Circulate Recall Petition" to begin to attempt to remove Ald. David Olsen from office. They have 30 days to gather 887 signatures to force an election.


In Defense of Ald. Olsen

by

The "Coalition for the Best Jefferson" recently filed a recall petition against Ald. David Olsen, giving their reason as "David J. Olsen has violated the Open Meetings Laws of the State of Wisconsin and has not acted in the best interest of the City of Jefferson, Wisconsin."

Of course this is true. The same charge could be made against almost all members of the Council and the Jefferson Development Commission. For example, in October 2004 the Council spent $5,000 on a strategic planning consultant, then held two planning meetings without any public notice.

This clearly violated the Open Meetings law - no debate from any corner. It wasn't in the best interest of Jefferson to avoid the input of vital stakeholders such as businesses and the public, or to exclude reporters from the process. Several Council members used the secret meetings to launch their doomed campaign to fire the City Engineer and Park & Recreation director. So should we recall them all?

Olsen didn't wait to be elected to violate the Open Meetings law, either. In my experience, as shown in the opinions from District Attorneys as well as the State Attorney General, he violated it left, right and center for years as director at the now-defunct Jefferson Development Corporation, Commerce and Industry Association and as a Board member of the former Jefferson County Economic Development Corporation. You could argue that he did it all with the full support of past Councils, because not one of them tried to fire him publically when he violated it repeatedly.

State election law clearly shows an intention of restraint and caution when it comes to recalls. They don't make it easy. You can't recall immediately - they need to hold office for a year before you can try to unseat them. A successful recall petition doesn't eject someone from office. It only forces an election.

You need to gather a great number of signatures - 25% of the number of voters in the last presidential election. In Jefferson's case, that's 887, based on 3,546 voters. Your group must gather these signatures within 30 days after filing the paperwork. The paperwork includes a spot for your reason for the recall, but no one at City Hall has to validate your reasoning.

The whole process takes time. It can take 10 to 30 days to certify the petition, then another six weeks before the election is held. Olsen is automatically on the ballot unless he withdraws. Add any number of new candidates. Two more than Olsen forces a primary election, so now you need time for two elections. A replacement Council member might not be seated until October or November. Meanwhile, filings for the 2006 spring election are due in January with a February primary. Even if Olsen was unseated, it might only be for the last few months of his term.

Where has the "Coalition for the Best Jefferson" been for the last six years? I've been documenting Olsen's misdeeds since 1999. Olsen's misdeeds at the CIA, JDC and Chamber should have reduced his chances of being elected. I don't believe that Olsen had the support of his former buddies at the Chamber and business community in 2004.

After his "no" vote on annexation, certainly the pro-Wal-Mart business forces must be wondering why the City was giving Olsen a paycheck all those years with their support. For years, he told them he was working hard to bring businesses to town.

Yet Olsen gathered the greatest number of votes among the four Council races, getting 776 votes. By comparison, the Mayoral vote was split 607/608.

The two names on the paperwork for the "Coalition for the Best Jefferson" are Charlotte G. Nevin and Cheryl L. Higgins, two voices known for supporting Wal-Mart. No doubt this name is meant to tweak the nose of the "Coalition for a Better Jefferson," the name used for years by the anti-Wal-Mart forces in town.

Wal-Mart has vexed Jefferson since 2002 when the surveyors came to town. From the start I believed that the City's mechanisms for problem-solving were not mature enough to handle the task.

One clear demonstration of this immaturity was the vote against annexation. I agree with the folks who say that it's in the best interests of the City to gather more land under its jurisdiction. I also believe that the Council should have dealt with any Wal-Mart-related issues separately, after the annexation.

To me, bundling them together was an admission that they recognized they were incapable of dealing with Wal-Mart on the tough issues, so they picked the easy issue instead. Turning down the annexation doesn't resolve the questions and doesn't increase the tax base. They can re-apply. The next Council may soon face the same annexation and Wal-Mart questions. Is there any doubt that Jefferson will grow on its south border?

No doubt the "Coalition for the Best Jefferson's" records-related reason for recall refers to the way Olsen recently stretched Robert's Rules of Order at the last Wal-Mart presentation. What is this about? The agenda did not contain any item for public participation. This was purposefully omitted because the pro-Wal-Mart side was tired of hearing from the anti-Wal-Mart side. The Mayor favors Wal-Mart and he's in charge of the agenda. By some amazing scheduling coincidence, the very next night was the re-vote on the annexation.

At one point, Olsen spoke, then yielded the floor to solicit opinions from the audience. It is common practice at City and County meetings for a member of the body to ask a particular question from a single person at a time, on topic. It is not common and downright illegal to change the agenda.

Was it illegal to open it up to everyone, derail the meeting and stretch the agenda to include a public participation moment where none was announced? Perhaps it was illegal because Open Meetings Law beats Robert's Rules. Or maybe didn't violate State law because it wasn't a substantial change in the agenda. Are the other Council members in violation for allowing it? Is the Mayor to be faulted for not corralling the meeting in either case?

This violation pales in comparison to the outright closed-door nature of the strategic planning sessions mentioned above, or the documented years of Olsen's opposition to the openness of government.

I could praise him for advocating for public participation, but it's hard to swallow after fighting with him for years on the same issue. In the past, I pressed Olsen and many others to adopt a policy of always adding a public comment item to every agenda. He fought it.

I think a public comment item on every agenda of every meeting is the best way for the public to express themselves at the appropriate level of government. If Olsen really thought that the Wal-mart meeting needed a public participation agenda item, he can ask for it and fight for it in public, under Robert's Rules.

As for the new Coalition, if they think they've found a significant Open Meetings violation, I recommend that they do what you're supposed to do: File a complaint with the District Attorney. Proceeding to a recall is like running to third base without touching first and second.

Here is a list of other possible deeds that are also probably not illegal:

  • Lying outright occasionally, or coming as close as possible to lying most of the time.
  • Claiming to get ten times the number of phone calls as all other Council members put together, all supporting your position.
  • Claiming someone just stopped you on the street and supported what you were doing.
  • Claim you've conducted surveys to justify your position, without supplying evidence.
  • Claiming Wal-Mart called you for a meeting and denying you called them or encouraged them to call you.
  • Using the newspapers to pose yourself as a "man of the people."
  • Playing all political situations for drama, as long as the spotlight is on you.
  • Writing letters to the editor, but submitting them under other people's names.
  • Writing letters to the editor so egregious that the paper won't print them, your name or not.
  • Finding other people to do your dirty work in any political situation where you want to pull strings.
  • Positioning yourself as a undecided swing vote in order to attract attention.
  • Entertaining tit-for-tat compromises on issues in order to change your vote.
  • Behind-the-scenes shenanigans as standard operating practice.
  • Blank stares to answer simple questions.
  • Sucking up to people you think are rich or powerful.
  • Bully and threaten and provoke, then claim your fragile sensibilities were offended when the response comes.
  • Poking your finger in the air inches from someone's chest when they disagree.
  • Promoting Internet travel sites while directing the Chamber of Commerce.
  • Believing, deep in your heart, that it's OK to tell a bald-faced lie in the pursuit of your goals.
  • Consulting with attorneys and experts behind the scenes to question the actions of the Council.
  • Not putting your questions and the expert's answers in writing, but expecting everyone else to regard your unwitnessed phone conversations as legal opinions.
  • Ignoring the advice of the City Attorney, both as City employee and as Council member.
  • Doubling your health care coverage without authorization and forgetting to tell your boss.
  • Back-dating documents to create your retirement fund without authorization, then fund it by manipulating the checkbook to adjust your salary without authorization.
  • Claiming that a Governor and a Senator are your best buddies and that their DNA is on the palm of your hand at this minute because you just returned from their office or mansion.
  • Asking the Guv to appoint you to the state Tourism Council as a local rep even though you're no longer involved in local tourism, and against the written pleas of local tourism directors.
  • Presenting misleading Chamber financial statements to the Council in order to secure more public funds.
  • Persuading these groups to fund your personal education with public dollars.

All these things are probably not strictly illegal.

Let's look ahead to the possible outcomes. Perhaps it will be difficult for the group to gather the required number of signatures and the effort will fail. End of story until election time next Spring.

Meanwhile, Olsen gets to play innocent. The voices in his head supply the unverifiable but supportive anecdote. He'll trot out the drums and fife and flag. For example, here's what he said in the Watertown Daily Times when the recall was announced:

"I sure don't know any violations that I might have made of the state's open meetings laws. I'll have to look at the allegations and I've got to tell you I was on the street just this afternoon and someone walked up to me and said they thought I was doing a great job and they appreciated the work I've done so far on the council. We all live in America and people have freedom to do what they want to do. I was in the military to defend those freedoms."

He's under stress. He forgot Mom and apple pie.

Or perhaps it will be easy for them to get 887 valid signatures. Perhaps pro-Wal-Mart citizens, voters or not, majority or not, will construe this recall petition as their own pro-Wal-Mart vote. An election is forced. Olsen stands his ground and doesn't resign in shame.

The pro-Wal-Mart side probably has a candidate in the waiting. If a third candidate runs, there's a primary and therefore two elections. A spoilsport candidate from either pro- or anti-Wal-Mart sides could run to force a primary and further divide the vote.

The Coalition would need to convert those signatures into a majority of votes, which will be a very difficult task against an incumbent in the heat of summer in a special election. If Olsen wins, it renews his vigor and probably helps his re-election campaign. If Olsen loses, the new Council member serves for about six months - four of which they'll need to spend on a second campaign in order to stay in office. Olsen is free to run again, two months after he lost.

Maybe it's all about a quick re-submittal of the annexation request. Six votes would pass it. Five didn't.

This petition seems like a futile effort considering that January is only five months away. It's a lot of work with great risk and great potential to stink up Jefferson's already troubled process. At best, it might just be a ploy to "send a message" and begin a campaign to unseat Olsen in the next election. I think it's a coin toss as to whether Olsen runs for Council again or runs for Mayor.

Violations of Open Meetings Law? I've documented quite a few, many involving Olsen. Wrists everywhere are pink from all the slapping, but the violations continue.

The best interests of the City? That'll always be open to reasoned debate, but I would remind the new-name Coalition that the recall process isn't the most civil card in the deck.

Don't want him around? Find a way to effectively oppose him when he runs again, preferably by finding a better candidate. Half the Council is elected every year. What more could you want? Elections every six months?

I find myself coming to Olsen's defense. Hell cools down. Film at 11.

I think I should file the paperwork to create the "Coalition for the Bestest Shiniest Super-Dooper Jefferson." I'd like to send a message, too - the same one I've been sending for years.