September 21, 2016 at 3:55 p.m.
No conspiracy theory, Billy Fried, just the facts
No conspiracy theory, Billy Fried, just the facts
We feel Mr. Fried's comments demand a straightforward and public response, both to factually set the record straight and to warn against the dangers of elitism.
First, after Walker expressed concerns about the lack of accountability of the sheriff's department to other county elected officials and bodies, and after he urged the committee to begin the process of revising the county code to provide more oversight of the agency, Mr. Fried said he was upset.
Walker's remarks consisted of "perception and opinion," he explained, and had the feel of "a conspiracy theory."
We vociferously disagree. Walker's remarks merely reiterated established facts about the sheriff's department conduct, not only in its handling of records related to what turned out to be an allegation of rape against a deputy but in its own internal investigations related to that deputy, Lee Lech.
Walker also stressed facts, not perceptions and opinions, about the county's fragmented oversight authority over the sheriff's department. He pointed out facts when he said no elected officials outside the department itself have any oversight authority over the agency's internal investigations.
Walker asked hard questions. He stated facts. None of it was perception or opinion.
Let's take a look.
Fact: Then deputy Lee Lech was accused of rape, which would be a violent crime if prosecuted.
Fact: The investigation of that allegation - which the victim declined to pursue legally - was conducted internally, not by an outside agency.
Fact: The sheriff never reported the investigation nor the allegation to either of two elected bodies with oversight authority over the department - the grievance committee and the public safety committee.
Fact: Elected officials charged with oversight of the department were in the dark about the allegation of violent sexual assault against one of its employees, even as this newspaper pursued records about the matter in court.
Fact: Sheriff Grady Hartman took three different positions on the rape allegation itself. In court, the agency maintained the allegation was unfounded; to the newspaper, the sheriff said it was impossible to determine whether the allegation was unfounded; to the county where Lech was seeking employment, Hartman said he advised investigators there of the accusation and advised them not to hire Lech.
Fact: Hartman did not place the rape allegation and investigation in Lech's personnel file, but says he did verbally tell Clark County officials about it.
Fact: The Clark County sheriff denies that he or his employees were ever told about the allegations and has claimed Clark County is "a victim" of Oneida County.
Fact: In court, Vilas County judge Neal "Chip" A. Nielsen III said he had "grave concerns" about the department's finding that the records in the Lee Lech matter showed the rape allegation to be unfounded. Not so, the judge said. Here's how the judge put it:
"The department further argues against releasing documents when the allegations consist of uncorroborated hearsay statements or when the allegations are unsubstantiated, unfounded, or untrue, which are all statements made by the department in this case. I have a grave concern that, if there is reason to believe these allegations are unsubstantiated, unfounded, or untrue, they are not found in the documents contained in (the sealed records)."
Fact: The department denied records to the newspaper, stonewalling for months before finally releasing many documents as the case headed to a court date, admitting they were wrong to withhold them. By that time, thousands of dollars of legal fees had been incurred.
Fact: Since the State Supreme Court in 2007 let stand an appeals court decision that disciplinary records about alleged misconduct are subject to the open-records law, no disciplinary records have been denied by a court in Wisconsin.
Fact: The department lost its bid to keep the remaining records sealed.
Fact: The total cost to taxpayers for an unnecessary lawsuit is at least $50,000.
Fact: For almost two years, the sheriff's department has conducted a mystery investigation involving a sheriff's deputy who has not worked but who has remained on the payroll roster of the county.
Fact: Deputy Lee Lech was accused of fraternizing and drinking with an underage person during an out-of-town training exercise, and of perhaps providing alcohol to that person, who lost her job.
Fact: The department concluded that the underage charge was unfounded after interviewing Lech but failing to interview anyone else - not the underage person, and not any witnesses.
Fact: A Marathon County law enforcement official, not Hartman, apologized for the behavior of the Oneida County deputy.
Fact: Lech is on record saying that "everybody" drinks and parties while on county out-of-town training exercises.
Fact: Lee Lech had a habit of letting certain people off rather than citing them after he stopped them for drinking while driving.
Fact: The county's grievance committee - which is charged with overseeing the department's disciplinary actions - has never met during Hartman's tenure. This despite the foregoing disciplinary matters, not to mention the resignation of a corrections officer after Hartman threatened to fire him unless he quit.
Fact: No disciplinary action has ever come before any of the elected committees charged with oversight of the sheriff's department.
Fact: Other counties in Wisconsin require by code that all disciplinary investigations be reported to county committees of jurisdiction, and those committees have oversight of internal investigations.
None of what is listed in bold above can be described as opinion or perception. Each is an established fact. If Mr. Fried disagrees, we invite him to respond and specifically tell us how any item can be described as opinion rather than as fact. We urge him to do so.
Facts by definition cannot be described as a "conspiracy theory," but such facts do give rise to serious questions about the conduct underlying those facts, and those are the hard questions Walker posed to the public safety committee.
Given the facts, one would think the committee would be not only willing but eager to answer the questions and to get to the bottom of what has happened and what needs to be done to prevent it from happening again.
Amazingly, instead of pledging to investigate the concerns raised, Mr. Fried defended the department and turned his fire on Walker. He said he was upset that Walker had presented the facts he did and asked the questions he did because they "stamped" "hard-working" employees in a bad way in a public meeting.
It was especially upsetting to him, he said, because the committee chairman had been "gracious enough" to allow Walker to speak to the committee.
This was perhaps the most shocking statement of the meeting. The very idea that elected officials are "gracious" enough to "allow" citizens to speak at their meetings should be offensive to every Oneida County citizen.
It smacks of the worst kind of elitism and arrogance, but it's what happens when politicians stay in the cozy confines of government too long. They become part of the system, part of the problem.
The elected members of the county board are not kings and queens, and we are not their subjects. We threw out royalty and monarchy more than 200 years ago.
In our system of government, it's the other way around. Elected officials are serving because the people are "gracious enough" in elections to allow them to serve. We don't need their gracious permission to talk to them or to address them with concerns - that's the right of every citizen, which is not triggered by gracious elites - but they do need our permission to stay.
They need to remember that.
A few final thoughts. To this day, there is ongoing resistance in the sheriff's department to releasing public records, even to the point of provoking lawsuits they cannot possibly win.
That's a big difference from the days when John Sweeney was chief deputy. For nearly 20 years, Mr. Sweeney turned over all the records we requested, reams and reams of documents that did not always make the sheriff's department look good.
But turn them over he did, respect the law he did. We did not always see eye to eye, but Mr. Sweeney served transparent government well and that in itself helps to keep a department honest.
Sadly, these days are long gone.
In his remarks at the public-safety committee, Mr. Fried also wondered why he and his colleagues weren't getting calls from constituents with concerns about the sheriff's department. Well, there's an obvious explanation.
Consider the facts above. Consider the questions raised about conduct inside the sheriff's department, from sexual assault allegations to playing favorites with the public.
Consider that, based on their actions and words to date, the members of the public safety committee are not one bit interested in answering these questions, not one bit interested in getting to the bottom of this conduct so it won't be repeated in the future, and not one bit interested in strengthening the county's oversight mechanisms.
So far there's only anger that the questions were asked at all and that the facts about the sheriff's conduct were even brought up.
So, if you are citizen with a complaint, would you trust that committee enough to call them, or would you fear that that could make you a target of the department? The answer is obvious.
In any event, elected officials are supposed to deal with problems they are made aware of, no matter whether it's from a citizen's call or a public records lawsuit and media investigation.
Indeed, taking quick action could make a citizen's call unnecessary if it prevents a citizen from becoming a victim of misconduct about which that citizen needs to make a call.
Put simply, Oneida County may be the only county in the state where a sheriff's department tried to cover up serious accusations only to have a judge force them to release the records.
Oneida County may be the only county in the state where a judge has publicly cast doubt on the findings of the department's internal investigation of that alleged crime.
Oneida County may be the only county in the state where its elected officials don't have a clue about what's going on inside the department - they have no interest in overseeing investigations, they have no concern that the judge doubted the veracity of the internal rape investigation, they don't care that the grievance committee has never met or that they are out of the loop about alleged crimes inside the department, they could care less that a mystery probe is ongoing after two years- and they aren't rushing to find out so they can prevent future fiascos.
With no guidance policies governing internal investigations, and no elected officials outside the department having any oversight capability over those investigations, Oneida County's elected officials have been gracious enough to the let the sheriff's department set its own rules and to work in the shadows.
They have been gracious enough to let them go rogue.
Thus, ironically, the sheriff's department doesn't have to ask permission for anything in its internal affairs, while Joe Average has to ask permission just to speak to his or her elected representatives. That's what happens when the elites of the county are gracious enough.
Comments:
You must login to comment.