May 18, 2023 at 2:22 p.m.
River News: Our View
Fifield questions need answers, for the best interest of all
Without both, government will become estranged from the people, will preoccupy itself in its own institutional interests, cloistered in its own closets and corners, and will cease being representative of the people's will.
This is true nationally, and it is true locally. When the people and their watchdog press question authority, the darkness lifts.
We in northern Wisconsin have become used to a vigilant citizenry. We can't begin to count the number of times citizens have come to us, asking us to investigate irregularities they see, or to expose some injustice they have been subjected to.
It happens quite a lot, actually, and more than it should, precisely because there is lacking in many communities a vigilant press. The general decline of local newspapers that will hold power accountable has occurred not just in northern Wisconsin but across the United States.
It makes the work of vigilant citizens ever more important.
The latest example of such vigilance comes from Fifield, where citizens there have alerted us to a troubling situation in which the Fifield town board illegally placed slow-no-wake buoys without following proper procedures, including updating their boating ordinance, publishing that ordinance in the local newspaper, and getting the state Department of Natural Resources to sign off on it.
It's troubling not just because the town board placed illegal slow-no-wake buoys in the Pike Lake Chain of Lakes but because the Price County sheriff's department was enforcing what it thought was a legal ordinance regulation, including the issuance of citations, though it turned out not to exist.
It's troubling, too, because there are indications - or at least suggestions - that the town board knew they needed to amend their ordinance before allowing the placement of those buoys, as we report in today's edition.
And it's even more troubling because one of those town board members, Ann Sloane, is a deeply involved member of the lake association that urged the buoy placements and even lives near at least one of the illegally placed buoys.
For these reasons, as the story today details, we have asked the special prosecutor for Price County to initiate an investigation into these actions. It's past time that the actions of the town board and of Ms. Sloane be scrutinized.
Specifically, an investigation should seek to answer two sets of questions: Did the town board engage in willful misconduct? Did town board members knowingly fail to update the town's ordinance to evade public notice, and did the board knowingly fail to notify the public of buoy placement before enforcement of the nonexistent ordinance provisions?
With respect to Ms. Sloane, who had participated in discussions about the buoys and even seconded a motion and voted for a motion pertaining to them, did her actions constitute a conflict of interest that rise to the level of an ethical breach?
We cannot answer those questions, only the special prosecutor can. But we can ask them, and, in a letter to special prosecutor Tom Coaty, we are asking them.
We also urge other residents of Fifield and of Price County to ask them as well.
It is important to emphasize, as was done to the special prosecutor, that we make no accusations against any individual. Rather, the evidence at hand suggests that, at the very least, the actions of the town board and of Ms. Sloane need to be scrutinized. Clearing the air one way or another will best serve not only the public interest but the private interests of town board members, and it will serve to give voice, not to mention a satisfying and just resolution, to those residents who have run afoul of illegal regulations and who hunger for answers.
We wish we could say that a request for a formal legal investigation by the special prosecutor wasn't necessary. We wish we could say that an examination of the records provided to us by the Fifield town clerk was sufficient for us to conclude that the actors in these episodes simply didn't know any better, or were careless.
Unfortunately, our examination of the records did not yield such a conclusion. In fact, the records raised more questions than answers. It may well be that an investigation by the special prosecutor would clear everyone, but we cannot conclude that merely by looking at the documents. Serious questions stand out and demand answers only an official probe can give.
There is also an ominous backdrop to our request. That is to say, supervisor Ann Sloane and Fifield town chairman William Felch have refused to return our calls or to answer our questions. That only confirms to us that something is not right and that an investigation is needed.
We hasten to add that the town clerk/treasurer, Kelly Kleinschmidt, has been very cooperative. We have no issue with her actions, and we believe that, if Ms. Sloane and Mr. Felch had been as equally interested in doing their jobs, this request could conceivably have been avoided.
That said, the questions remain. Regarding the town board, how could they not have known that an ordinance revision was needed to place additional buoys? Indeed, in 2015 they passed an ordinance specifically delineating where 10 legal buoys could be placed. Why would board members just a few years later think they could place additional buoys without a similar ordinance or amendment?
Then, too, the town board minutes we have clearly show that communications between the town and the DNR were taking place concerning the agency's reviewing authority for boating ordinances, under which buoy placement takes place. The minutes also clearly show that the agency answered the town concerning motorized boating sign language.
Yet no minutes then or later indicate the town received that clarification about the agency's reviewing authority, one way or the other. Are we to believe the DNR did not answer the town, which would shift some responsibility to the agency? Are we to believe the town never followed up, if the agency did not respond? Are we to believe the town ultimately placed the buoys not knowing their legal ability to do so, after having wondered about it?
So many questions, and so few answers from the town. In fact no real answers from the town. Hence, our request to the special prosecutor. With respect to Ms. Sloane, we have the same concerns about transparency. On its face, it appears that she has a serious conflict of interest that required her to recuse herself from engaging in any discussion or voting on the buoys' issues, and yet not only did she not do so, she actually seconded a motion to consider the placement of the illegal buoys at a later date.
We would love to have Ms. Sloane explain her side of the story, to tell everyone why her work as an officer and member of the lake association pushing for the buoy placements, not to mention having a residence near the illegal buoys that were placed, does not constitute a conflict of interest.
She has chosen not to do so. These pages remain open for her to give that explanation to her constituents and to the public; in the meantime, perhaps she can give her explanation to the special prosecutor.
There is one final red flag that we view as ominous and almost by itself demands a probe by the district attorney. That is, why were the draft meeting minutes of the town board's March 21, 2023, revised some two weeks after the initial draft was written?
If that was done simply to provide additional remarks left out of the first draft, that would be one thing. But the new draft contains a serious omission: It deletes from the first draft the DNR's characterization that the six buoys placed in 2022 were illegal.
Even more important, it actually changes the factual content of the motion passed - and seconded by Ms. Sloane - from approving the placement of 10 legal buoys and another by a dam under federal direction to approving the placement of the legal buoys as well as considering the other six buoys at a later date?
So which motion was actually made at the meeting? It seems a stretch that the person preparing the minutes could have gotten a motion so wrong.
And, finally, who ordered the minutes revised? That is a critical question.
In sum, all of this points to the need for an investigation into the town board's actions, as well as those of Ms. Sloane individually, and the sooner the better.
The town board, as well as the special prosecutor, should know that the vigilant citizens who brought this matter to our attention are still vigilant.
Comments:
You must login to comment.