Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
As the Winnebago County District Attorney's office concludes its investigation and renders a decision on the closed session meeting held by the Oshkosh Common Council on Feb. 14 over the Five Rivers Resort development, Cheryl Hentz and Tony Palmeri have filed their own complaint and request for investigation with the Office of the Wisconsin Attorney General.
It was filed with that office one week ago and we were told on Thursday, March 9 that the matter was being referred that afternoon to the office's investigation division for handling. It could take a month or longer, we're told, for the investigation to be completed.
We do hope that the information and the supporting or "evidenciary" documents we submitted will help prove our complaint and that the Attorney General's office will eventually make a determination in our favor.
For strategic reasons we have chosen not to publish the complaint itself online at this time, but may decide to do so at some point in the future. We will, however, keep people updated through this web site and TonyPalmeri.com if and as we find out anything new.
- Cheryl Hentz
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 03:07 PM MST
I still contend the city councilors went about their meeting in the correct way: They asked the city attorney if it was proper if they hold the meeting, and he advised it was. The meeting was held. They checked with the legal counsel provided to them by the city. What else were they supposed to do?
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: admin on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 03:21 PM MST
The prudent thing to do if there was any doubt whatsoever would have been to wait a few weeks and check with the Attorney General's office. Aren't we always told in life that when in doubt, err on the side of caution? That would have been sound advice in this case for sure, but they did not do that. And we believe the reasons for closing this meeting were questionable, at best. But we will see what the AG's office says.
- Cheryl
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 06:13 PM MST
I agree with this idea. The city attorney provides legal counsel but that does not mean that city council members should toss aside their own sense of common sense and ethical guidelines. When in doubt, do not proceed. There were enough yellow flags here, if not red ones, that they should have cheked with the highest authority in the state. As we now see the developer is not going to get started on this resort until several months from now anyway so what would have been the harm in waiting?
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 16 2006 @ 01:39 PM MST
Flags raised by whom? A university professor in communications and a free lance writer? To whom are the councilors supposed to listen to? These two, or an attorney with a law degree?
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 16 2006 @ 01:53 PM MST
No, genius, red flags raised by the law as it reads. The council had plenty of doubt and should have waited to get a definitive answer. By the way, why is it Warren Kraft exercises the luxury of picking and choosing which directives from the Attorney General he is going to follow? Don't you find that suspect?
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 05:29 AM MST
There are no directives from the AG's office. The AG, over the years, files "opinions" on specific fact driven scenarios. They often try to develop broad opinions to cover many scenarios. The AG's opinions are not considered legal precedent (though they are considered "persuasive precedent"). Essentially, the opinions are intended to be used as "guides" by other lawyers and organizations. So when you imply that the AG has directed certain comliance in the area of open meetings, I beleive you are misusing that term: there is no directive, but there is an attempt to create direction. With that said, I agree with an earlier poster who notes that thats why the council has a lawyer: to interpret the law and give them direction based on his interpretation. There were no red flags, as you say: only disagreements as to interpretation. The "Five Rivers Six", Cheryl Hentz and Tony Palmeri feel the law should be interpreted one way, and Warren Kraft, the City Attorney, has interpreted the law another. I appreciate the differences of opinions because that is what are society is all about: dissent. The problem, however, is that the council has hired an attorney to give them his opinion and have followed his opinion. In every walk of life we rely upon others opinions (whether legal or otherwise) for many different things. If we had to rethink and reconsider every decision and "turn",nothing would ever get done.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 07:08 AM MST
Call them directives; call them opinions. It really does not matter. What does matter is that Warren Kraft picks and chooses which "opinions" issued by the AG he is going to follow. That is not what he is paid to do. Let's look at what this city attorney and model of municipal law fitness has done in the last 2 years alone on major issues:
* He has (along with the city clerks office) screwed up on the smoking ban referendum.
* He has given a completely different opinion on bid waiving for bathrooms than both the AG and DA.
* He has a different interpretation than what various AGs have said over the years about open meetings.
These are three major and potentially lawsuit generating issues in 2 years alone.
I think Palmeri, Hentz, Rylance, the Oshkosh Northwestern and others who opposed this meeting are correct. The meeting IMHO was illegally held and I believe the AG's office will rule that way too. If that happens what will people like you say? Will it be the same thing as Warren Kraft and the council said before? "It's only another attorney's opinion." If that is the case then please tell us what purpose the AG's office holds in matters such as this if it is the top law enforcement agency in the state but a municipal attorney can choose to ignore the laws and the AG's opinions on those laws.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 07:23 AM MST
The meeting in your opinion was illegally held. What are your credentials allowing you to speak as an expert on the subject?
How many lawsuits have been bought against the city for the alleged "illegal" activity? Doesn't look to me like Mr. Kraft's opinions were all that egregious, were they?
The opinions expressed by the AG are just that: opinions. The only way they become legally binding is when they are ruled on in court. Hasn't happened yet, has it?
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 07:33 AM MST
Assuming you are correct why does Kraft follow some opinions and not others? The vessel carrying your argument has holes in it.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 08:06 AM MST
That is Warren Kraft's responsibility-- to formulate his own opinions! He uses arguments posed by others to do the same thing. His job is not about following others' opinions. If it was, anyone could do his job! He looks at case law, coupled with statutes and opinions, and formulates his own interpretations. That's how law works. The only way it is tested is if someone brings a lawsuit.
This vessel is water tight!
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 08:11 AM MST
So your agument is the AG's opinions mean nothing. Let's do away with that office then.
But you still have failed to answer why Kraft picks and chooses the AG opinions he is going to follow in Oshkosh.
At the end of the day it is not his responsibility to pick and choose which laws he is going to follow. The law in this case seems pretty clear. But he is so smug professionally that he guided the council to not even delay a meeting to be sure. That's not smart.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 08:26 AM MST
Warren Kraft's responsibility is NOT to formulate his own opinions...His job is to help make sure the city council and other boards follow the laws and stay out of court...In the case of bathroom bid waiving the attorney general and district attorney each said the law was broken...But you keep on supporting Mr. Kraft...Interesting how he seems to know better than everyone else...Taxpayers should not have to bring lawsuits against the city...We're already paying for the decisions voted into law by the council...We shouldn't have to spend even more money to fight them...The law enforcement agencies are supposed to be seeing to it that the laws are followed if city attorneys like Warren Kraft don't...After paying (make that overpaying) for things at the Leach, the skatepark, and an aquatic center, not to mention having our trash removed, we can't afford to fight city hall on our own.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 08:34 AM MST
Warran Kraft's job is to interpret the law. How does he do that? he formulates his own opinions. As was previously posted, he does so be reviewing opinions of other legal professionals (read: the AG), case law, and state statutes. The only thing ANY attorney can offer is his opinion. That's all they get paid for.
The AG's opinion on matters does not need to be followed! It's an OPINION.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 08:47 AM MST
You obviously don't understand the issue here. Nor can you explain why Kraft follows some of what comes from Lautenschlager's office and not others. It is pointless trying to get you to understand the basic principles at stake here or the laws that support them. My bet is on the way the law is written and the other attorney generals who opined about how it must be followed. I also suspect the AG is going to find the city broke the law - again.
Oh yes, if Kraft has as much authority to interpret the law as the AG and he doesn't have to follow what that office says, why do they or even district attorneys have the ability to prosecute or assess fines when the law has been broken?
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 09:09 AM MST
Although I probably should not waste my time responding to the most recent posts about the AG opinions, I do so not only because it is lent and it is a form of penance, but in an effort to answer what many of you have deemed unanswerable. That is...first, no post has said that the AG's opinions are meaningless, they are simply an opinion of an attorney at that time who worked in the AG's office and was asked a particular question about a particular area of law. In regards to the courts, the opinions of the AG's office are not binding on a court. The circuit courts (and COA) must follow the precedents set down by the higher courts; circuit courts can consider the AG's opinion as persuasive as well. The AG's opinions are also viewed as persuasiv e authority by municipalities, municipal authorities, and state prosecutors as to a given question of the law. These opinions are no more binding on those reviewing the opinions than they are on the courts. Again, they are persuasive precedent and are generally regarded as "the law". The opinions, however, are directed to a particular set of facts. So, for instance, a city attorney may review the AG's opinion on open meetings and note that the fact scenario used in the opinion differs from the fact pattern in the current situation and therefore is not "on point". In that situation, the city attorney, hired, mind you, to give opinions to the staff, including the council, based on his or her review of the law (court opinions at all levels, scholarly writings on the subject, and AG opinions).
What the previous posters appear to be saying is that the city attorney is wrong. If that is your opinion, that is fine. However, what is your opinion based on? Have you read all of the AG opinions, differentiated the fact scenario, viewd the court of appeals and supreme court rulings ont his subject? My suspicion is that you have not....I would also suspect you are basing your opinion on what other critics and pundits have opined on this subject (especially the admin. opinion). Now, I will admit I have not read all of the applicable law on the subject as well. However, I have read the AGs opinion and the opinion leaves a lot of wiggle room. Based on that previous opinion, if the city attorney would base his opinion or interpretation of the law on certain comments in the AG opinion, the five rivers meeting would apparently not have violated the open meetings law. So your comment that we are just ignoring the AG's opinion is equally ignorant: the truth is that the city attorney is probably bending over backwards to follow the language in the opinion that allows for closed meetings.
A large corporation hires attorneys to give it advise, on the one hand, and offer legal ways to justify conduct, on the other hand. The city attorney will often advise the council on areas of the law as well as justify the council's decision on a particular action (such as the closed meeting). What Warren Kraft did, despite your desires to hang him in effigy outside of City Hall, was exactly what he is hired to do: advise. You simply do not like the advice! That does not mean the advice is wrong, though.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 09:14 AM MST
It also does not mean his advice is right. We will see what the AG has to say and if fines are then levied against the council members who went into that meeting.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 10:01 AM MST
And the fines can ONLY be levied if this is debated in a court room in front of a judge, not based on the opinion of the AG. That's what you aren't getting. The AG's opinion doesn't mean anything UNTIL it is upheld in a court. Then and only then can penalties be meted out.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 10:09 AM MST
I get that and I am willing to bet that the AG's office will move this to the next level when it's done with its investigation. Or the DA, whichever happens first.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 11:11 AM MST
Well, I generally do not bet, but based on prior like cases, I am willing to take that bet (when was the last time the DA found a violation of open meetings or open records...and actually did something about it! The most recent issues in which the DA was asked for an opinion, he either sat on it forever, or found no violation. Look at the UWO cop who shot that person after a drunk driving stop. Lennon found wrongdoing by the cop, but also did not feel it needed to be pursued. When was the last time that the AG pursued a municipality for a violation of open meetings? If you're having trouble remembering, its because they do not often pursue these).
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 11:18 AM MST
You got it right finally. Take it to the next step-- the courts-- not taking the AGs word as law. It isn't, until the courts have their say. And it doesn't even become case law until it's appealed!
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 11:22 AM MST
Simply because the process is long and labored does not mean the city council or any other governmental body should knowlingly break the law or not seek the opinion of a higher authority. this council should have waited a few weeks to be sure they were doing the right thing. They thought nothing of granting another extension to the developer. How about erring of the side of caution for the people once in a while.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 11:27 AM MST
What "people"? the six protesters, the Northwestern, Tony Palmeri? They asked for an opinion from their attorney...they got the opinion, he blessed the closed meeting and they met. Who is supposed to oversee that? The voters. If you don't like it, vote them out of office. However, if you are complaining that they should have waited 2 weeks to talk to "someone else" (whoever that is!), your comment makes no sense. They received their inormation and went to work. If they did something wrong, they can balme the city attorney. In either case, if you do not like what occurred, your only recourse is at the ballot box.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 11:50 AM MST
You are wrong. There were other options and avenues of recourse. The council debated having Warren Kraft confer with the Attorney general's office and frankly, they should have done just that. Kraft complained it might take too long. Everything else about this process has been delayed in favor of the developer, but never in favor of the one's footing the bill on this end. The burning question that no one has yet answered is why does Warren Kraft accept some AG opinions, especially some that are pretty innocuous in nature, and reject those that have the ability to create real damage? there is no rhyme or reason to it.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 12:05 PM MST
I agree...the council should have done something: nothing! That's right, let's fire the city attorney, city planner, city manager (keep the city clerk to call roll), save the city hundreds of thousands of dollars and instead, let's make a new rule, an ordinance, that all decision by the city council must first be approved by each voting age member of the City of Oshkosh (what's that 30,000 people?). All decisions, great or small, should be decided by US. The people of the city of Oshkosh. We have no other recourse but to micro-manage the city because a vocal minority are displeased with the decision of the city.
So, I will agree to a new form of government; some want more, some want less, we'll opt for NONE. Let's do it on our own. Let's see, if we start taking roll at 6:00 PM we should have all of the votes in and tallied by...June.
All right,, I must be crazy! Apparently, government actually has some utilitarian purpose. You are suggesting that as long as government does what "I" want it to do, its okay; when they do soemthing "I" don't agree with, there needs to be a change, or "they're breaking the law". When the city council has relied upon their own attorneys opinion on matters in the past, I never heard an uprsing of the masses. Now, the same thing has happened, the city attorney has given the city council his opinion, and it must be wrong, because a few don't agree with the opinion or the council should have given it more thought or consulted with another authority...why do they have to operate city business differently this time around opposed to the way it has been done, without objection, in the past?
As I said before, its okay to disagree with the council, vote them out of office, consider them off their rockers, but it is an entirely different leap to assume what they did was illegall AND will result in fines based upon the limited information that hasbeen shared and on prior experiences with the AG and DA's offices.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 12:14 PM MST
You say a lot but can't answer a very simple question. It is a futile effort. So let's wait and see how things pan out with the complaints already filed.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 12:17 PM MST
To the poster who keeps asking the question about Warren Kraft and his record of following some opinions of the AG but ignoring others. First of all, can you give some concrete examples? I don't recall any offhand. But beyond that, it is not hi job to go along with everything the AG says! Especially when some of the AGs opinions are VAGUE at best. That's what you're missing. We don't have to have an answer to that question. Warren Kraft was hired by the city to do something and he is doing it. If you don't like what he does, take the appropriate steps to go after his job. Or just keep complaining.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 12:49 PM MST
Here's just one example. Council members not making any statements unless they're on the agenda. Something by the way that to his credit Mark Harris rejected when he was mayor, telling Kraft he'd take his chances on being sued.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 02:28 PM MST
No, I answered the question, you just can't accept that answer. This brings me back to the point that I continue to make: until the answer fits into your narrow agenda, your position is that everyone else is wrong and you are the only one that is right.
It's nice walking through life with a "black and white" perspecitve. However, we happen to have a lot of gray in the world; and, coincidentally, that's what lawyers deal with-the gray. I agree with you that there is nothing more you can say or do on this subject and that we should just sit back and wait for the AG to come to the rescue. Get comfy!
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 11:23 AM MST
The problem is that you just simply dont understand the AG's office and its authority. As has been explained previsouly by other posts, which you are either intentionally ignoring or cannot grasp the concept, is that the AG offers its opinion...just like, say, the city attorney! The AG, like the city attorney is saying what they feel the law on a particular issue addresses. Most AG opinions will start by citing the fact pattern and then commenting that "based upon these facts..."and offfer their opinion. The city attorney, coincidentally, does the same thing: he cites to authorities, statutes and ordinances and offers his opinion.
Can these opinions be wrong? Although we should never dare to challenge the opinion of an attorney, the answer is (quietly) "yes". This does not mean the conduct was illegal. So, the poster who has already made his/her finding that the closed meeting was both illegal and will result in fines, has jumped to far too many conclusions. Lest not forget that (1) there has to be a determination that the council met illegally (which the AG will NOT conclude, they will only offer an OPINION as to that question), and (2) that even if it were illegal, should there be any sanction (which would have to brought by an enforcement agency like the local DA or AG), especially if they were relying upon their legal counsels opinion (just like YOU are relying upon with the AG).
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: admin on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 05:11 PM MST
Due to some technical problems an anonymous comment placed here earlier was accidentally lost. I apologize for the snafu, but the upshot of it was that the writer criticized us for not publishing the complaint for strategic reasons. S/he went on to say that the council essentially did the same thing by holding their closed meeting for bargaining and strategic reasons. To that individual I would respond thusly:
First, we do not wish to jeopardize the investigation in any way. That is why we have made the decision we have. But anyone ought to be able to see the differences between this and governmental bodies bound by laws, especially where millions of our tax dollars are involved.
I will also state once again, that Tony and I do not believe any bargaining is still going on with respect to this project. We believe the only things still being negotiated have to do with what kind of terms the city is going to give this developer. We further do not believe that such discussion is sufficient reason for closing the meeting held on Feb. 14.
- Cheryl Hentz
It was filed with that office one week ago and we were told on Thursday, March 9 that the matter was being referred that afternoon to the office's investigation division for handling. It could take a month or longer, we're told, for the investigation to be completed.
We do hope that the information and the supporting or "evidenciary" documents we submitted will help prove our complaint and that the Attorney General's office will eventually make a determination in our favor.
For strategic reasons we have chosen not to publish the complaint itself online at this time, but may decide to do so at some point in the future. We will, however, keep people updated through this web site and TonyPalmeri.com if and as we find out anything new.
- Cheryl Hentz
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 03:07 PM MST
I still contend the city councilors went about their meeting in the correct way: They asked the city attorney if it was proper if they hold the meeting, and he advised it was. The meeting was held. They checked with the legal counsel provided to them by the city. What else were they supposed to do?
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: admin on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 03:21 PM MST
The prudent thing to do if there was any doubt whatsoever would have been to wait a few weeks and check with the Attorney General's office. Aren't we always told in life that when in doubt, err on the side of caution? That would have been sound advice in this case for sure, but they did not do that. And we believe the reasons for closing this meeting were questionable, at best. But we will see what the AG's office says.
- Cheryl
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 06:13 PM MST
I agree with this idea. The city attorney provides legal counsel but that does not mean that city council members should toss aside their own sense of common sense and ethical guidelines. When in doubt, do not proceed. There were enough yellow flags here, if not red ones, that they should have cheked with the highest authority in the state. As we now see the developer is not going to get started on this resort until several months from now anyway so what would have been the harm in waiting?
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 16 2006 @ 01:39 PM MST
Flags raised by whom? A university professor in communications and a free lance writer? To whom are the councilors supposed to listen to? These two, or an attorney with a law degree?
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 16 2006 @ 01:53 PM MST
No, genius, red flags raised by the law as it reads. The council had plenty of doubt and should have waited to get a definitive answer. By the way, why is it Warren Kraft exercises the luxury of picking and choosing which directives from the Attorney General he is going to follow? Don't you find that suspect?
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 05:29 AM MST
There are no directives from the AG's office. The AG, over the years, files "opinions" on specific fact driven scenarios. They often try to develop broad opinions to cover many scenarios. The AG's opinions are not considered legal precedent (though they are considered "persuasive precedent"). Essentially, the opinions are intended to be used as "guides" by other lawyers and organizations. So when you imply that the AG has directed certain comliance in the area of open meetings, I beleive you are misusing that term: there is no directive, but there is an attempt to create direction. With that said, I agree with an earlier poster who notes that thats why the council has a lawyer: to interpret the law and give them direction based on his interpretation. There were no red flags, as you say: only disagreements as to interpretation. The "Five Rivers Six", Cheryl Hentz and Tony Palmeri feel the law should be interpreted one way, and Warren Kraft, the City Attorney, has interpreted the law another. I appreciate the differences of opinions because that is what are society is all about: dissent. The problem, however, is that the council has hired an attorney to give them his opinion and have followed his opinion. In every walk of life we rely upon others opinions (whether legal or otherwise) for many different things. If we had to rethink and reconsider every decision and "turn",nothing would ever get done.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 07:08 AM MST
Call them directives; call them opinions. It really does not matter. What does matter is that Warren Kraft picks and chooses which "opinions" issued by the AG he is going to follow. That is not what he is paid to do. Let's look at what this city attorney and model of municipal law fitness has done in the last 2 years alone on major issues:
* He has (along with the city clerks office) screwed up on the smoking ban referendum.
* He has given a completely different opinion on bid waiving for bathrooms than both the AG and DA.
* He has a different interpretation than what various AGs have said over the years about open meetings.
These are three major and potentially lawsuit generating issues in 2 years alone.
I think Palmeri, Hentz, Rylance, the Oshkosh Northwestern and others who opposed this meeting are correct. The meeting IMHO was illegally held and I believe the AG's office will rule that way too. If that happens what will people like you say? Will it be the same thing as Warren Kraft and the council said before? "It's only another attorney's opinion." If that is the case then please tell us what purpose the AG's office holds in matters such as this if it is the top law enforcement agency in the state but a municipal attorney can choose to ignore the laws and the AG's opinions on those laws.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 07:23 AM MST
The meeting in your opinion was illegally held. What are your credentials allowing you to speak as an expert on the subject?
How many lawsuits have been bought against the city for the alleged "illegal" activity? Doesn't look to me like Mr. Kraft's opinions were all that egregious, were they?
The opinions expressed by the AG are just that: opinions. The only way they become legally binding is when they are ruled on in court. Hasn't happened yet, has it?
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 07:33 AM MST
Assuming you are correct why does Kraft follow some opinions and not others? The vessel carrying your argument has holes in it.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 08:06 AM MST
That is Warren Kraft's responsibility-- to formulate his own opinions! He uses arguments posed by others to do the same thing. His job is not about following others' opinions. If it was, anyone could do his job! He looks at case law, coupled with statutes and opinions, and formulates his own interpretations. That's how law works. The only way it is tested is if someone brings a lawsuit.
This vessel is water tight!
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 08:11 AM MST
So your agument is the AG's opinions mean nothing. Let's do away with that office then.
But you still have failed to answer why Kraft picks and chooses the AG opinions he is going to follow in Oshkosh.
At the end of the day it is not his responsibility to pick and choose which laws he is going to follow. The law in this case seems pretty clear. But he is so smug professionally that he guided the council to not even delay a meeting to be sure. That's not smart.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 08:26 AM MST
Warren Kraft's responsibility is NOT to formulate his own opinions...His job is to help make sure the city council and other boards follow the laws and stay out of court...In the case of bathroom bid waiving the attorney general and district attorney each said the law was broken...But you keep on supporting Mr. Kraft...Interesting how he seems to know better than everyone else...Taxpayers should not have to bring lawsuits against the city...We're already paying for the decisions voted into law by the council...We shouldn't have to spend even more money to fight them...The law enforcement agencies are supposed to be seeing to it that the laws are followed if city attorneys like Warren Kraft don't...After paying (make that overpaying) for things at the Leach, the skatepark, and an aquatic center, not to mention having our trash removed, we can't afford to fight city hall on our own.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 08:34 AM MST
Warran Kraft's job is to interpret the law. How does he do that? he formulates his own opinions. As was previously posted, he does so be reviewing opinions of other legal professionals (read: the AG), case law, and state statutes. The only thing ANY attorney can offer is his opinion. That's all they get paid for.
The AG's opinion on matters does not need to be followed! It's an OPINION.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 08:47 AM MST
You obviously don't understand the issue here. Nor can you explain why Kraft follows some of what comes from Lautenschlager's office and not others. It is pointless trying to get you to understand the basic principles at stake here or the laws that support them. My bet is on the way the law is written and the other attorney generals who opined about how it must be followed. I also suspect the AG is going to find the city broke the law - again.
Oh yes, if Kraft has as much authority to interpret the law as the AG and he doesn't have to follow what that office says, why do they or even district attorneys have the ability to prosecute or assess fines when the law has been broken?
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 09:09 AM MST
Although I probably should not waste my time responding to the most recent posts about the AG opinions, I do so not only because it is lent and it is a form of penance, but in an effort to answer what many of you have deemed unanswerable. That is...first, no post has said that the AG's opinions are meaningless, they are simply an opinion of an attorney at that time who worked in the AG's office and was asked a particular question about a particular area of law. In regards to the courts, the opinions of the AG's office are not binding on a court. The circuit courts (and COA) must follow the precedents set down by the higher courts; circuit courts can consider the AG's opinion as persuasive as well. The AG's opinions are also viewed as persuasiv e authority by municipalities, municipal authorities, and state prosecutors as to a given question of the law. These opinions are no more binding on those reviewing the opinions than they are on the courts. Again, they are persuasive precedent and are generally regarded as "the law". The opinions, however, are directed to a particular set of facts. So, for instance, a city attorney may review the AG's opinion on open meetings and note that the fact scenario used in the opinion differs from the fact pattern in the current situation and therefore is not "on point". In that situation, the city attorney, hired, mind you, to give opinions to the staff, including the council, based on his or her review of the law (court opinions at all levels, scholarly writings on the subject, and AG opinions).
What the previous posters appear to be saying is that the city attorney is wrong. If that is your opinion, that is fine. However, what is your opinion based on? Have you read all of the AG opinions, differentiated the fact scenario, viewd the court of appeals and supreme court rulings ont his subject? My suspicion is that you have not....I would also suspect you are basing your opinion on what other critics and pundits have opined on this subject (especially the admin. opinion). Now, I will admit I have not read all of the applicable law on the subject as well. However, I have read the AGs opinion and the opinion leaves a lot of wiggle room. Based on that previous opinion, if the city attorney would base his opinion or interpretation of the law on certain comments in the AG opinion, the five rivers meeting would apparently not have violated the open meetings law. So your comment that we are just ignoring the AG's opinion is equally ignorant: the truth is that the city attorney is probably bending over backwards to follow the language in the opinion that allows for closed meetings.
A large corporation hires attorneys to give it advise, on the one hand, and offer legal ways to justify conduct, on the other hand. The city attorney will often advise the council on areas of the law as well as justify the council's decision on a particular action (such as the closed meeting). What Warren Kraft did, despite your desires to hang him in effigy outside of City Hall, was exactly what he is hired to do: advise. You simply do not like the advice! That does not mean the advice is wrong, though.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 09:14 AM MST
It also does not mean his advice is right. We will see what the AG has to say and if fines are then levied against the council members who went into that meeting.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 10:01 AM MST
And the fines can ONLY be levied if this is debated in a court room in front of a judge, not based on the opinion of the AG. That's what you aren't getting. The AG's opinion doesn't mean anything UNTIL it is upheld in a court. Then and only then can penalties be meted out.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 10:09 AM MST
I get that and I am willing to bet that the AG's office will move this to the next level when it's done with its investigation. Or the DA, whichever happens first.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 11:11 AM MST
Well, I generally do not bet, but based on prior like cases, I am willing to take that bet (when was the last time the DA found a violation of open meetings or open records...and actually did something about it! The most recent issues in which the DA was asked for an opinion, he either sat on it forever, or found no violation. Look at the UWO cop who shot that person after a drunk driving stop. Lennon found wrongdoing by the cop, but also did not feel it needed to be pursued. When was the last time that the AG pursued a municipality for a violation of open meetings? If you're having trouble remembering, its because they do not often pursue these).
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 11:18 AM MST
You got it right finally. Take it to the next step-- the courts-- not taking the AGs word as law. It isn't, until the courts have their say. And it doesn't even become case law until it's appealed!
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 11:22 AM MST
Simply because the process is long and labored does not mean the city council or any other governmental body should knowlingly break the law or not seek the opinion of a higher authority. this council should have waited a few weeks to be sure they were doing the right thing. They thought nothing of granting another extension to the developer. How about erring of the side of caution for the people once in a while.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 11:27 AM MST
What "people"? the six protesters, the Northwestern, Tony Palmeri? They asked for an opinion from their attorney...they got the opinion, he blessed the closed meeting and they met. Who is supposed to oversee that? The voters. If you don't like it, vote them out of office. However, if you are complaining that they should have waited 2 weeks to talk to "someone else" (whoever that is!), your comment makes no sense. They received their inormation and went to work. If they did something wrong, they can balme the city attorney. In either case, if you do not like what occurred, your only recourse is at the ballot box.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 11:50 AM MST
You are wrong. There were other options and avenues of recourse. The council debated having Warren Kraft confer with the Attorney general's office and frankly, they should have done just that. Kraft complained it might take too long. Everything else about this process has been delayed in favor of the developer, but never in favor of the one's footing the bill on this end. The burning question that no one has yet answered is why does Warren Kraft accept some AG opinions, especially some that are pretty innocuous in nature, and reject those that have the ability to create real damage? there is no rhyme or reason to it.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 12:05 PM MST
I agree...the council should have done something: nothing! That's right, let's fire the city attorney, city planner, city manager (keep the city clerk to call roll), save the city hundreds of thousands of dollars and instead, let's make a new rule, an ordinance, that all decision by the city council must first be approved by each voting age member of the City of Oshkosh (what's that 30,000 people?). All decisions, great or small, should be decided by US. The people of the city of Oshkosh. We have no other recourse but to micro-manage the city because a vocal minority are displeased with the decision of the city.
So, I will agree to a new form of government; some want more, some want less, we'll opt for NONE. Let's do it on our own. Let's see, if we start taking roll at 6:00 PM we should have all of the votes in and tallied by...June.
All right,, I must be crazy! Apparently, government actually has some utilitarian purpose. You are suggesting that as long as government does what "I" want it to do, its okay; when they do soemthing "I" don't agree with, there needs to be a change, or "they're breaking the law". When the city council has relied upon their own attorneys opinion on matters in the past, I never heard an uprsing of the masses. Now, the same thing has happened, the city attorney has given the city council his opinion, and it must be wrong, because a few don't agree with the opinion or the council should have given it more thought or consulted with another authority...why do they have to operate city business differently this time around opposed to the way it has been done, without objection, in the past?
As I said before, its okay to disagree with the council, vote them out of office, consider them off their rockers, but it is an entirely different leap to assume what they did was illegall AND will result in fines based upon the limited information that hasbeen shared and on prior experiences with the AG and DA's offices.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 12:14 PM MST
You say a lot but can't answer a very simple question. It is a futile effort. So let's wait and see how things pan out with the complaints already filed.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 12:17 PM MST
To the poster who keeps asking the question about Warren Kraft and his record of following some opinions of the AG but ignoring others. First of all, can you give some concrete examples? I don't recall any offhand. But beyond that, it is not hi job to go along with everything the AG says! Especially when some of the AGs opinions are VAGUE at best. That's what you're missing. We don't have to have an answer to that question. Warren Kraft was hired by the city to do something and he is doing it. If you don't like what he does, take the appropriate steps to go after his job. Or just keep complaining.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 12:49 PM MST
Here's just one example. Council members not making any statements unless they're on the agenda. Something by the way that to his credit Mark Harris rejected when he was mayor, telling Kraft he'd take his chances on being sued.
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 02:28 PM MST
No, I answered the question, you just can't accept that answer. This brings me back to the point that I continue to make: until the answer fits into your narrow agenda, your position is that everyone else is wrong and you are the only one that is right.
It's nice walking through life with a "black and white" perspecitve. However, we happen to have a lot of gray in the world; and, coincidentally, that's what lawyers deal with-the gray. I agree with you that there is nothing more you can say or do on this subject and that we should just sit back and wait for the AG to come to the rescue. Get comfy!
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 17 2006 @ 11:23 AM MST
The problem is that you just simply dont understand the AG's office and its authority. As has been explained previsouly by other posts, which you are either intentionally ignoring or cannot grasp the concept, is that the AG offers its opinion...just like, say, the city attorney! The AG, like the city attorney is saying what they feel the law on a particular issue addresses. Most AG opinions will start by citing the fact pattern and then commenting that "based upon these facts..."and offfer their opinion. The city attorney, coincidentally, does the same thing: he cites to authorities, statutes and ordinances and offers his opinion.
Can these opinions be wrong? Although we should never dare to challenge the opinion of an attorney, the answer is (quietly) "yes". This does not mean the conduct was illegal. So, the poster who has already made his/her finding that the closed meeting was both illegal and will result in fines, has jumped to far too many conclusions. Lest not forget that (1) there has to be a determination that the council met illegally (which the AG will NOT conclude, they will only offer an OPINION as to that question), and (2) that even if it were illegal, should there be any sanction (which would have to brought by an enforcement agency like the local DA or AG), especially if they were relying upon their legal counsels opinion (just like YOU are relying upon with the AG).
Five Rivers closed meeting complaint filed with AG
Authored by: admin on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 05:11 PM MST
Due to some technical problems an anonymous comment placed here earlier was accidentally lost. I apologize for the snafu, but the upshot of it was that the writer criticized us for not publishing the complaint for strategic reasons. S/he went on to say that the council essentially did the same thing by holding their closed meeting for bargaining and strategic reasons. To that individual I would respond thusly:
First, we do not wish to jeopardize the investigation in any way. That is why we have made the decision we have. But anyone ought to be able to see the differences between this and governmental bodies bound by laws, especially where millions of our tax dollars are involved.
I will also state once again, that Tony and I do not believe any bargaining is still going on with respect to this project. We believe the only things still being negotiated have to do with what kind of terms the city is going to give this developer. We further do not believe that such discussion is sufficient reason for closing the meeting held on Feb. 14.
- Cheryl Hentz
posted by Cheryl Hentz at 1:26 PM
<< Home