I have been elected three times to represent portions of the UW campus area since 1998--two terms as a county supervisor and one term on city council--and I have read many editorials in the student papers in support of my work, and sometimes against. But, I was truly appalled by the cheap, personal attack by Eric Kleefeld in Thursday's Daily Cardinal [\Madison council as 'model' government,"" Nov. 21], which didn't seem focused on any issue of substance, but rather, appeared to be an amateurish attempt at a personal hatchet job.
His rant was so full of outright falsehoods, half-truths and vitriol that for it to be presented as an ""opinion"" article is shameful. Opinion articles that support or criticize my politics are fair game, but ones which attempt to imply that I am not a ""student"" representative because I am too bald or too old--or criticize me for not speaking, but then call me a ""shameless self-promoter,"" are just immature. A little advice Mr. Kleefeld: Real journalism does not engage in ad hominem attacks.
Let's be clear: District 5, my district, is no longer a student district. In the last city council election, on-campus undergraduates accounted for only 8 percent of the vote. If you include on-campus graduates, it amounts to 20 percent. The bulk of the voters are homeowners and other nonstudents. But that hasn't deterred me from being one of the strongest supporters of student issues in local government.
For Mr. Kleefeld to state that I do not ""work on behalf"" of my constituents is dishonest. I have either been the sponsor or co-sponsor of every major (and minor) piece of legislation in the past six years in local government that strengthens renters' rights, assists low-income residents, strengthens sexual assault prevention, increases women's safety and protects privacy rights.
On issues related to local bars and restaurants, I have been the most vocal opponent against video surveillance of patrons, against drink special bans and against smoking restrictions that allow some bars to permit smoking while others cannot.
Mr. Kleefeld stated that I voted for the strong version of the smoking ordinance and against the compromise. Wrong, Eric. Get your facts straight. I voted against both Tuesday night because I believe that both create a disparate economic impact on certain bars.
What I do support is a public referendum for the April ballot, to let the voters decide the smoking in bars issue. I believe that in order to ""level the playing field"" we should either ban smoking in all bars and restaurants or keep current restrictions. I personally support the full ban, but feel the voters should decide this one.
I did not speak to the smoking issue Tuesday night because after five hours of public testimony and another hour of debate, there was no reason to speak further. Everything that needed to be said was said.
Mr. Kleefeld spent half of his article criticizing me for being a co-sponsor of the anti-war resolution that was before the city council Tuesday night. He even stated that I was fidgeting in my seat in eagerness to speak to it--which begs the question: How does he know what I'm thinking or fidgeting about?
What Mr. Kleefeld failed to mention is that I was not the author of the anti-war resolution--Ald. Matt Sloan, District 13, was--and that I did not even speak to it all night. I just voted for it. That's all.
I was just one of eight sponsors of the resolution, and one of 11 alders that voted for its passage. I don't know why Mr. Kleefeld singled me out from all of the other supporters of this resolution for his personal treatment but if he didn't like the resolution, he should have condemned all of us.
What he also failed to mention is that the anti-war resolution was the last item on our agenda of over 170 items. We had already voted on over 170 other items before we even considered the anti-war resolution at 12:30 a.m. Moreover, we ""wasted"" no time discussing it, we just voted. We did not take precious time away from any other pressing local issue, as Mr. Kleefeld suggests. We had already cleared our plate of all business. However, Mr. Kleefeld deftly ignored this fact.
It's sad that Mr. Kleefeld missed the point about the anti-war resolution. During the '60s, the Madison City Council voted on a resolution to condemn the Vietnam War. The council knew that it was important for a university town to express dissent because those dying were college-age men and women. No one had grand illusions about resolutions stopping the war, but the combined small efforts of everyone accomplished just that.
