|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Feature
|
|
Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
Current rating: 0 |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
14 Sep 2004
|
|
Urbana Mayor Tod Satterthwaite and City Councilmember, Milton Otto, have been slinging charges of "ethics" violations against the mayor's political opponents on the city council. A closer look at these recent bizarre attacks on members of their own party in Urbana reveals that it is a cover up for their own questionable ethics, most notably the back room maneuvering to grant Wal Mart control over Urbana's Comprehensive Plan. |
Urbana Mayor Tod Satterthwaite and City Councilmember Milton Otto, have been slinging charges of "ethics" violations against the mayor's political opponents on the city council. A closer look at recent strange goings on in Urbana reveals that this is a cover up for their own questionable ethics, most notably the back room manuveuring to grant Wal Mart control over Urbana's Comprehensive Plan.
The efforts by Satterthwaite and Otto have included feeding duplicitous information about Council Member Laura Huth to the News-Gazette after the mayor directed the city attorney to stall on giving Huth a straight answer on how to best resolve any potential conflicts of interest after she became executive director of the local Habitat for Humanity chapter. Then, after Huth went forward based on the purposely vague answer given by the city attorney, Satterthwaite started feeding the press exaggerated claims about "ethics" violations by Huth.
Then the mayor also directed Otto to put forward amendments to Urbana's new ethics ordinance, needed to comply with changes in state law, that went far beyond what the state law called for, specifically targeting council members who work for local non-profit organizations or, more ridiculously, even know people who work for non-profits that might receive city funding.
The idea seemingly was that, despite the fact that the monies involved would not personally benefit anyone, any person who received the same benefits as any other citizen of Urbana might from these organizations was somehow receiving a special benefit.
Thus, this sort of thinking could be used to claim that any member of the council who voted on an ordinance dealing with the Sanitary District, and who did NOT also have an outhouse (instead of being hooked up to the sewer system), would be in violation of Otto's proposed amendments. The mayor and Otto both tasted defeat in this portion of their smokescreen, but this hasn't prevented the mayor from moving forward with more of his subterfuge.
The latest attack was at the September 13, 2004 City Council meeting. Still smarting from a procedural defeat at the Monday meeting of the Urbana Public TV commission, where the mayor's efforts to prevent "Democracy Now!" from being shown on cable went down in flames as the commission unanimously approved a rules change that brought (hopefully) an end to the mayor's obstructionist tactics regarding DN!, the mayor charged last night that Councilmember Danielle Chynoweth had a conflict of interest because she voted on an appropriation to extend wireless internet service to downtown Urbana and beyond. This is because her ex-roommate (no relation) is one of those working to bring this community resource to Urbana.
Never mind that he is no relation to Chynoweth.
Never mind that this is not a violation of the old ethics ordinance or the new one.
Never mind that no one will personally profit or benefit any more than any other citizen of Urbana.
Never mind that Urbana's small donation to the community wireless project leverages nearly 10 times as much investment from outside granters, or that this initiative would extend the benefits of the network to Urbana's business community -- which is undergoing a revival, in large part because of a new downtown economic development program that was largely the result of Huth and Chynoweth's hard work (and certainly not the mayor's, who sat on his hands through most of his terms in office as downtown deteriorated.)
Never mind that Satterthwaite and Otto have their own highly questionable dealings that need far closer scrutiny than the News-Gazette and other local media have so far given to their secretive maneuvering in making it possible for Wal Mart to sneak into Urbana, to the direct and substantial profit of one of Otto's relatives.
In fact, the land where Wal Mart wants to locate is currently owned by a relative of Otto's. The mayor was privy to Wal Mart's desire to locate there, despite the fact that Urbana’s pending, but not yet enacted, Comprehensive Plan would not have allowed Wal Mart to locate there, except....
Except that the Comprehensive Plan, several years in the making, including a series of neighborhood meetings involving many citizens in the community giving input into how Urbana should grow in the future, suddenly was put on ice about the time that we now know Wal Mart first secretly approached the city. What did they need? Wal Mart needed a location on the east side of town, instead of in the North US 45 corridor where the city has already made substantial infrastructure investments to encourage future growth there or in the South Philo Road area, which badly needs redevelopment.
The mayor concealed these facts, while directing city staff to place the Comprehensive Plan on hold. Then, after Wal Mart announced its intentions, he set up a process that forced council members to vote on what Wal Mart wanted because of the way it was legally structured by city staff, who the mayor directs. The result is that the citizens of Urbana will be forced to foot the bill to build substantial and costly new infrastructure to serve Wal mart in an area where they did not want it. The costs involved will negate for years any "benefit" provided to Urbana from the sales tax revenue generated by Wal Mart in order to build and extend infrastructure there.
Otto was involved, both through his silence about a plan he obviously knew about and through his subsequent attempts to do the mayor's bidding (payback, you ask? Ask Otto. PLEASE.) These include his sponsorship of adding two at-large council members in a blatant attempt to dilute the progressive majority on the council and the legally unsupportable "ethics" amendment to the new ethics ordinance. Both measures went down in defeat, but it's hard to see that either was ever anything but political grandstanding by Otto and the mayor against their political opponents.
Otto did not even offer a written version of the at-large proposal, a sure sign that he was never serious about it. And the "ethics" amendment was not supported by the state-level enabling legislation, making it questionable that it would have ever been legally enforceable, even if Otto had had the votes to pass it, which he knew he didn't.
In sum, the most recent temper tantrums of the mayor and the obviously incompetent proposals of Otto are a smokescreen.
They are a smokescreen to distract public attention from this not-so-dynamic duo's own smoky back room philandering that will personally profit Otto's relative. Is the mayor fishing for a private sector job if he decides not to run for reelection? He'd certainly make a great Wal Mart manager, but his time trying to use Chicago-style political chicanery should be rapidly drawing to a close, especially so if what he has really been up to receives the attention it so richly deserves.
Related Stories:
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/19683
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/19829/index.php
http://www.ucimc.org/feature/display/19244/index.php
http://www.ucimc.org/feature/display/19148/index.php
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/15141
http://www.ucimc.org/feature/display/14955/index.php |
Related stories on this site:
"Mannequins for Satterthwaite" mp3
I've got your conflict of interest right here
| 
This work is in the public domain. |
Comments
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Sep 2004
|
Chenowyth, in an interview with WILL-AM aired this morning, quoted Satterthwaite as having said the following to her on June 12, when trying to intimidate her into dropping her opposition to redrawing the ward map: "You know, it's not that I believe that [there's a conflict of interest involving CU-WIN], but I can tell that story, and people will believe it. I have a way of describing, spinning the story about you that will be negative."
A very ugly threat, which he has now carried through in a very ugly way.
@%< |
|
Vote Satterthwaite Out! |
by Muck Raker
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Sep 2004
|
Tod's pattern of behavior is a consistent string of intimidation and dirty politicking conducted under his blanket facade of being a "liberal" or, shudder, even "progressive," trading on the Satterthwaite name.
It's too bad that Ms. Chynoweth is alone amongst City officials and employees willing to publicly discuss the kinds of threats the mayor makes in private. Unlike city employees, her job doesn't depend on staying in Toddy's good grace. She only has politicaly reprisal to fear from Tod's wrath, not unemployment.
If only former City Council members and other city employees who've been victim to Tod's intimidation could band together and pull back the curtain on Urbana's skinny Wizard, then perhaps the voters of Urbana would see the real Tod: a petty careerist local pol more interested in chasing young babes in Champaign bars than actually doing the work and serving the interests of the citizens of Urbana.
Now is the time for an informational campaign to show the citizens the true face of ol' Mayor Tod. We can all pitch in by describing and noting all of Tod's weasely deeds here at U-C IMC, and then bringing these facts to new venues: The News-Gazette and DI letters and editorials; the Public I; fliers, posters and pamphlets.
And, hey, how about we start a regular series on UPTV? the Truth About Tod. |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by Faith Swords
faith (nospam) ucimc.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
14 Sep 2004
|
From the News-Gazette today:
URBANA – The conflict of interest issue won't go away in Urbana.
In recent weeks, the focus has been on Alderwoman Laura Huth, who decided last month to reject $38,000 in city funding for Habitat for Humanity for Champaign & Piatt Counties, an agency she heads as executive director, to avoid conflict allegations.
On Monday night, the spotlight shone on Alderwoman Danielle Chynoweth, D-Ward 4, who engaged in an extraordinary, unplanned post-council news conference with Urbana Mayor Tod Satterthwaite.
The controversy concerns the fact that Chynoweth successfully proposed adding $18,600 to the city budget this fiscal year to allow the city to buy hardware to join a wireless network being developed in downtown Urbana. The Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network, a not-for-profit community organization, is developing the network.
Chynoweth made the proposal but apparently did not inform fellow council members that her friend and former housemate, Sascha Meinrath, is coordinator of the wireless project. Nor did Chynoweth abstain from the vote.
The city money is to be used to buy computer hardware to install 75 to 80 wireless "nodes" downtown, up from the 50 planned when the wireless group received a $200,000 grant in February from the New York-based Open Society Institute.
The city would buy and own the computer hardware purchased with its contribution, and the Community Wireless Network would not benefit financially, both sides agree.
But Satterthwaite said he still had a problem with the arrangement.
"This equipment would be plugged into her friend's network," he said. "She was thinking, 'This is a good thing for the city,' and maybe in the back of her mind, a good thing for her friend."
Having a wireless network downtown could be a good thing, Satterthwaite said, but it would have been better for the city to seek requests for proposals or bids for the equipment. Partnering with the Community Wireless Network will mean having to purchase equipment compatible with that network, he said.
"There are other systems very comparable to this particular network," Satterthwaite said. "And if it is the best, why not go through a competitive process?"
Chynoweth said the Community Wireless Network is willing to provide free consulting and software for the project, which she said would be "open source, open connectivity wireless."
"CU Wireless has no interest in making a dime off of the city," she said. "They don't sell equipment. Nothing about it is proprietary. They are a local group that gives it away for free."
"I don't think there's a conflict of interest in saying, 'I have a housemate who gives stuff away for free, let's take advantage of it,'" Chynoweth said.
The plan for wireless downtown would be to provide free Web surfing and e-mail access, with a focus on outdoor locations. Potential sites would be the Urbana Free Library, the Urbana City Building, Fish and Crane alleys, Strawberry Fields, the park at Elm and Race streets and the Farmers' Market. Connection would come from small computers mounted throughout downtown in places such as lampposts and parking decks.
Chynoweth alleged that Satterthwaite's motivation in raising the issue is that she did not vote this summer in favor of a political redistricting map that the mayor favored. She charged that the mayor warned her during a June 12 meeting at a local restaurant that he might raise the conflict of interest issue if she didn't support his map. She said she walked out on him.
"There's been a deliberate attempt to put my name in political disrepute and I find it a huge distraction from addressing the problems of the city," Chynoweth said. "We spend our time and staff's time coming up with politically motivated lies about council members."
Also Monday, Huth informed council members that she intends to seek a federal waiver or exemption for her conflict of interest from the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development. She said she will be informing the Champaign City Council and the Champaign County Board of her intentions in coming weeks.
You can reach Mike Monson at (217) 351-5370 or via e-mail at mmonson (at) news-gazette.com. |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by Faith Swords
faith (nospam) ucimc.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
14 Sep 2004
|
From the News-Gazette on 09/08/04:
URBANA - Urbana City Council members unanimously approved a new ethics ordinance Tuesday night, but they were hardly of like minds about the issue.
Alderman Milt Otto, D-Ward 7, said that recent conflict of interest allegations involving fellow Alderwoman Laura Huth, D-Ward 5, who was absent Tuesday night, showed that the city needed even tougher restrictions than the ordinance on the table.
Otto proposed an amendment that would have extended conflict of interest prohibitions in the ordinance to situations that would involve benefiting a domestic partner, roommate, relative or housemate of an elected city official. The motion failed to get a second.
But Otto got in his verbal shots nonetheless. He criticized Huth for allowing her conflict of interest situation - involving her council duties and her role as executive director of Habitat for Humanity for Champaign and Piatt Counties - to linger on all year.
Huth on Aug. 16 announced that Habitat would not accept $38,000 in federal housing monies included in the city's annual action plan, nor would it accept three vacant city lots, worth an estimated $75,000, that the city was planning to turn over to Habitat.
But the decision not to accept the funding came only after Huth had initially sought $268,000 in grant funding, had personally appeared before the city's Community Development Commission in support of Habitat's application and after she had been warned explicitly in a June 30 letter from the U.S. Department of Housing an Urban Development that she was "in violation" of federal conflict of interest provisions.
"I think what was going on there was wrong," Otto said. "We had a member of the council continue to contact staff and lobby. Staff appointments are reviewed each year (by the city council). She was coming in and asking for $250,000. It's clearly inappropriate regardless of what state law or HUD regulations say."
Otto also criticized Alderwoman Danielle Chynoweth, D-Ward 5, for successfully proposing an approximately $20,000 budget amendment this summer to purchase equipment to help set up a wireless community network for low-cost fast Internet service in downtown Urbana. A former roommate and co-worker of Chynoweth's is project manager for the Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network, a not-for-profit organization which is behind the project.
Otto said Chynoweth didn't disclose her ties to the project and didn't abstain on the vote.
"These things are wrong," he said. "This is not how we should be doing business in Urbana."
Alderwoman Esther Patt, D-Ward 1, responded that the ethics ordinance, required by a new state law, was meant to address a gift ban and using public employees for political purposes. A model ordinance put forward by Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan didn't even include a provision about conflict of interest. That was added by the city council, she said.
The conflict of interest provision included in the city ordinance exactly reflects state law, and to add Otto's stronger provision could invite political abuse, Patt said.
"Turn the clock ahead 15 years," said Patt about Otto's proposal. "If the mayor and city administration wanted to harass a city council member for political purposes, this would be one tool to do it."
The conflict provisions should reflect state law "and not add a long grocery list," she said.
Patt said the money to buy wireless equipment "is for the public benefit" and will not enrich the Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network.
Urbana Mayor Tod Satterthwaite said Chynoweth's original proposal was to use the money to "partner with (the ex-roommate's) company" and that the proposal was later changed to an equipment purchase.
Chynoweth said she considers a conflict of interest to be when a person or organization has a financial interest in an outcome. She said the Community Wireless Network is "a not-for-profit organization that would like to donate time and effort to the city to create a wireless network downtown."
"Not a penny" of the city's money would go to the organization and the city would continue to own the equipment it purchases, she said.
Violation of the ethics ordinance could result in a city fine of up to $750.
You can reach Mike Monson at (217) 351-5370 or via e-mail at mmonson (at) news-gazette.com. |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by Confused Citizen
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Sep 2004
|
|
Several months ago, someone told me that the City of Urbana needed people to serve on the Human Relations Commission, so I decided to volunteer. Todd Satterthwaite and I talked one morning before work, and he said that there weren't any open spots on Human Relations and we ended up talking about another board. I thought, "Well, OK." He was polite enough and said that they'd get back in touch with me. I never heard from them again, but I didn't think much of it - figured that maybe someone better-qualified had volunteered or something. Then someone on the Human Relations Commission said that he'd lied and there had been openings. I was quite confused since I hadn't thought that I was important enough to lie to. Oh well, they did give me a free Diet Pepsi for showing up. |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by Confused Citizen
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Sep 2004
|
BTW, I showed up at an earlier City Council Meeting where Milton Otto was discussing his ideas about ethics. He may have meant well, but his proposal didn't really seem well thought out It's unfortunate that he's continuing to bring it up. Persistence is usually a commendable quality, but it might be better if Otto applied some of his doggedness to coming up with something that made sense.
I'm peripherally involved with the C-U wireless project, and to the best of my knowledge, Danielle Chynoweth has some interest in it, but not much involvement. Realistically, Urbana isn't a big city, and many residents know each other, especially when they've lived here for a while. Also, communal living arrangements aren't that unusual. |
|
Da Man |
by urb
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Sep 2004
|
 |
|
Mayor Tod's campaign for re-election will begin shortly after the national elections. The campaign to defeat him could begin now... |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Sep 2004
|
jack: " Danielle Chynoweth, should have disclosed the relationship she had with this women"
Heh!
Don't-Know-Jack Ryan speaks from his usual viewpoint -- absolute ignorance.
@%< |
|
Satterthwaite Is a Walking Conflict of Interest |
by Muck Raker
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Sep 2004
|
If the nebulously defined "conflict of interest" is the issue, then isn't it a conflict of interest that Mayor Tod Satterthwaite, who as Mayor is also the liquor commissioner for Urbana, is the former co-owner of Tod & Jon's pub in Urbana?
Sure, like Ms. Chynoweth, he has no direct financial interest or profit in Tod & Jon's the bar any longer. But don't you think he nevertheless still has an interest in the continued success of the bar, currently owned by his former partner, who is probably still his friend?
Don't you think that Tod & Jon's benefited from the recent City Council decisions to allow liquor sales on Sunday mornings and to extend bar hours past 1 AM? Did Mayor Tod, formerly co-owner of a bar himself, recuse himself from these decisions? No.
According to Mayor Satterthwaite's current attack on Ms. Chynoweth, no elected city official should have ANY relationship with ANY organization or any individual that is seeking business with the city or that will benefit, or is perceived to benefit, in any way from city action.
But the question is: does Mayor Satterthwaite make the grade according to that standard? Does city councilman Milton Otto pass? |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by Joe Futrelle
futrelle (nospam) shout.net (verified) |
Current rating: 0
15 Sep 2004
|
If Tod wants to get serious about ethics, maybe he can come clean about the ethics of trying to intimidate council members into voting for a redistricting plan that benefits him by threatening to slander them with trumped up "confict of interest" allegations.
I'm not paying taxes in Urbana so that city officials can use the city council meetings as platforms for brass-knuckle campaigning designed to protect their political hides.
The only reason Tod feels like he has to go after Danielle is that she represents a powerful, organized constituency. Since he seems unable to contain this constituency by articulating policy positions that accomodate our concerns, he has resorted to intimidation and lies. Unfortunately for him, we're organized and we vote. |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by Bob D.
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Sep 2004
|
Although I agree that the mayor's charges of conflicts of interest are generally quite groundless, I do think perhaps a valid point is made regarding the lack of a bidding process for this [wireless] project.
As an independant IT consultant with local and national clients, I would have enjoyed the opportunity to bid on some if not all aspects of this project. Although I have not filed for non-profit status, my business typically does not often generate profits above and beyond what is necessary to provide for my house payments and food (and taxes for such a low/non-profit business are truly painful). Although I appreciate the efforts of the Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network, it seems their selection for this project seems a bit uncontested.
I understand that one usually must strike a necessarily a balance between deployment speed and delays associated with bureaucratic compliance - I'm just wondering how exactly the line was drawn.
Am I missing something here?
-Bob
P.S. Is the Buzz the only place to read "This Modern World" anymore? If so, that sucks. |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Sep 2004
|
My understanding is that there was really nothing to bid _on_, in the sense of any fee for services. The CU-WIN project isn't just non-profit, it's also volunteer -- an important distinction. It's not that CU-WIN isn't making a penny net -- these folks aren't making a penny _gross._ What's more, the (current) mayor _knows_ this, which is what makes his calculated attempt to spin it otherwise so despicable.
He's slandering both a local volunteer organization _and_ a city council member as payback for a completely unrelated issue. It's transparent and it's disgusting.
But the more people look into this, the more apparent it becomes that the mayor is shooting blanks, and this one's going to come back to bite him -- perhaps as early as next Monday's meeting.
@%< |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by conflict of interest?
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Sep 2004
|
You want a conflict of interest? How about that Councilwoman Chynoweth is a member of and contributor to a web site that slandered Mayor Satterthwaite and falsely accused him of assault and battery?
See -
http://archives.lists.indymedia.org/imc-chicago-working/2003-May/00104.html |
|
no conflict of interest.... |
by 5
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Sep 2004
|
...but thanks for pointing out yet another reason why the Mayor is "unfit for duty."
According to the dictionary,
"Slander is a defamatory statement expressed in a transitory medium such as verbal speech."
So what you mean is libel, and truth is a defense to libel. |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by c-o-i
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Sep 2004
|
Neenerneeenerneeener...the grammar and usage police have arrived. I thought that by referring to the Website as a collective entity that it would be the one to commit slander. What's more, to call the train wreck that is UCIMC a "transitory medium" is an understatement of mammoth proportions. Or, if you prefer, the UCIMC was used to libel the mayor. Take your pick.
(Happy now? I'll bet you were the kid in grade school that the teacher asked to watch everybody when she was out of the room. Prick.)
Back to the issue at hand. It sure is interesting how this person retreated from their public accusations, isn't it? |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by c-o-i
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Sep 2004
|
That link should read -
http://archives.lists.indymedia.org/imc-chicago-working/2003-May/001041.html
or, just read it all here for yourself:
[CIMC-work] FW: [Imc-legal] the Urbana mayor physically assaulted me this morning -- we need legal help!
Chris Kaihatsu ckaihatsu at myrealbox.com
Sat May 10 13:02:33 PDT 2003
Previous message: [CIMC-work] FW: [Imc-legal] Urbana-Champaign IMC under political attack:
Next message: [CIMC-work] FW: [Imc-legal] the Urbana mayor physically assaulted me this morning -- we need legal help!
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
From: Sascha Meinrath <sascha (at) ucimc.org>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 11:54:39 -0500 (CDT)
To: Sheri Herndon <sheri (at) speakeasy.org>
Cc: cindy (at) eff.org, David Burman <burmd (at) perkinscoie.com>, Lee Tien
<tien (at) eff.org>, <imc-legal (at) indymedia.org>, <imc-emergency (at) ucimc.org>
Subject: [Imc-legal] the Urbana mayor physically assaulted me this morning
-- we need legal help!
hi all,
i met with the urbana mayor this morning. attached is the account that i
sent out to city councilmembers after our meeting. briefly, the mayor
screamed at me, was physically intimidating, and then threw a chair at me
hitting me in the leg.
needless to say, i have no idea how to proceed.
--sascha
***
This morning after I sat down in Tod's office [the Urbana mayor], he
opened our meeting by screaming, "What the fuck is wrong with you!" He
then proceeded to slam his fist on the table in a threatening way, he then
grabbed his tea mug and slammed that on the table with enough force to
launch the tea strainer clear off the table. By this time I was quite
concerned for my physical safety; as it turns out, I had very good reason
to be.
He then grabbed the chair at the end of the table and threw it too. As I
was seated at the table already, the chair hit me in the leg. So, what do
you think I should do? I have been threatened and physically assaulted by
the mayor in his office in the city building. I certainly was fearful for
my safety throughout the meeting -- his secretary was in the other room
and heard both his yelling and the commotion of his slamming and throwing
things.
This is so far beyond what is acceptible behavior -- physical assault is a
serious criminal offense -- that I feel quite out of my league as to how
to proceed. I can be reached via phone at (217) 328-3856. The IMC's
Emergency Response Team will be going to the national media beginning this
evening, so plese be in contact before then.
Sorry to burden you all with this, but I really have no idea how to
proceed.
--Sascha
On Fri, 9 May 2003, Sheri Herndon wrote:
> hi friends,
>
> can someone please advise us? urbana is the imc who is the conduit for all
> funds in the network, is the only imc with nonprofit status, has one of the
most
> organized collectives (semi-professional you might even say), have a vital
> physical space, are active in funding imcs all over the world, and play a
> significant role in the network.
>
> thanks everyone,
> peace,
> sheri
>
>
> ====== Forwarded Message ======
> Date: 5/9/03 1:34 AM
> Received: 5/9/03 6:38 AM
> From: sascha (at) ucimc.org (Sascha Meinrath)
> To: imc-legal (at) indymedia.org
>
> Hi all,
>
> The Urbana-Champaign IMC was shut down this evening by fire inspectors.
> They claim that the violations are an incredible danger to public safety
> -- however, the same space was inspected last year without incident.
> Basically, we're still piecing together what is going on, but there was a
> secret meeting this afternoon between the mayor, fire chief, and building
> inspectors and they decided to shut down the Urbana-Champaign IMC.
>
> This is breaking _right now_ -- we have a group of folks that have had an
> emergency meeting this evening and will be working over the next 48 hours
> to get the word out. We're still attempting to work with local
> politicians -- I talked with the mayor this evening, but he ended up
> screaming at me on the phone; the fire marshall stated he was willing to
> meet with me (several city councilmembers have been calling city officials
> on our behalf), but he cancelled at 9p.m. (one hour before our scheduled
> 10p.m. meeting).
>
> So, it's looking like there's a concerted effort being made to shut down
> the Urbana-Champaign IMC and we're trying to figure out a way to fight
> this. I'll have more information tomorrow after I meet with various city
> officials.
>
> We're holding off releasing the story throughout the Global Network until
> we get a chance to meet face-to-face with local officials, but it's not
> looking likely. Below is a copy of our initial press release.
>
> --Sascha Meinrath
> Urbana-Champaign IMC
>
> Press Release
>
> Community Center Unexpectedly Shut Down by City of Urbana
>
> On Thursday, May 8, 2003, at approximately 6 PM, the performance space at
> the Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center (UCIMC) at 218 W. Main St.
> was closed by the City of Urbana under highly irregular circumstances.
>
> The UCIMC was first inspected three days earlier, on Monday, May 5. At
> that time, the UCIMC was given notice of six violations of the Urbana fire
> code and informed that a follow-up inspection would be conducted on May
> 29, 2003.
>
> On Thursday evening after business hours, the Division Chief of the Fire
> Rescue Services Department returned unannounced with a building official
> to close the performance space. It is extremely unusual for an inspection
> to occur after business hours and with little notice. Furthermore, the
> city has thus far given no reason why the space was suddenly shut down
> instead of reinspected on May 29, as stated in the original notice.
>
> The UCIMC has already made significant progress in addressing the
> violations listed by the Fire Department, and plans to continue addressing
> these concerns. It is unclear why the decision to close the performance
> space was made after it was determined at the initial inspection that the
> organization would have 24 days to fix the problems.
>
> The performance space at the UCIMC is Champaign-Urbana's only all ages,
> volunteer operated, not-for-profit, non-smoking venue for regularly
> scheduled touring and local music performances.
>
> FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT:
>
> Zach Miller Meghan Krausch
> 217-367-4678 217-390-6051
> 217-265-8458 217-244-4682
> zach (at) ucimc.org meghan (at) ucimc.org |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by Muck Raker
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Sep 2004
|
c-o-i: What's your point? Are you saying that Mr. Meinrath is lying? Do you have proof?
First, libel is only libel if the allegations are untrue. Second, public official, like the Mayor, are generally unable to pursue libel charges. That's why you can throw whatever allegations at George W. Bush without fear of being sued (or the Republicans could smear Bill and Hillary Clinton with the same immunity).
Third, there's no evidence of falsity in the passage you cite, therefore your allegations of libel are unproven.
Read a dictionary and law book before you try to use fancy words you don't understand. |
|
Yeah, It Happened |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Sep 2004
|
Sorry, c-o-i, but the incident did, in fact, take place. Just to clarify a couple of points.
The citation you made is not from this website. It was not reported here, but it is an email on a public global Indymedia list. The global Indymedia network is composed of more than 100 IMC, each of which determines their own policies. So you accusation starts off inaccurately -- it's simply not true that we did reporting on this specific incident here at this website. And what you did cite was not written by Danielle, as is obvious for anyone who wants to read it.
The decision was made that we (the UC IMC collective) did not want to further roil the waters by making a news story about it here on the website -- or, for that matter, having Sascha file an assault charge against the mayor. While it is unclear what the mayor's objective was in displacing furniture in the direction of one of our members, as a collective we want try to preserve a working relationship with the government of the city we are located in. Fortunately, despite the fact that the mayor would like to THINK he is the sole person in charge of Urbana's governemnt, this is just not so.
Unfortunately, the mayor's penchant for temper tantrums is a well known, but not well enough reported on fact. Maybe we should have run a news story about it. But we did NOT, contrary to your assertions.
Sascha and Danielle are far from the only persons he has threatened, but I can't say whether the mayor's act of violence was a one time event or symptomatic of worse. He's an insecure little bully, which says a lot about the source of the present controversies. Some people refuse to be intimidated, which often makes persistent bullies even more angry.
Furthermore, before you get any further down the road of simply not knowing what the fuck you're talking about, please read the disclaimer:
http://www.ucimc.org/mod/info/display/disclaimer/index.php
What is posted on this site is solely the responsibility of those who post it. I assume you are responsible for what you've just written, which is libelous on the face of it since it is provably false.
I think Muck Raker is right. You either need to spend some time studying law or you need to see a lawyer yourself to get better advice than you do from yourself. More likely, we'll just see more slanderous crap from the Satterthwaite camp. It's the only thing he/you seem to be good at. It sure isn't bringing people together to build a better Urbana. |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by John Anderson
phlegm (nospam) diymedia.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
17 Sep 2004
|
As a newcomer to the community, I have to say I'm glad I settled in Champaign. Tod Satterthwaite sounds like an uber-tool: someone who thinks he's a big fish but hasn't yet grasped that's only because he's in a small pond.
Urbana would really be doing itself a favor if they got rid of this pud and made him get a real job (which was, what, running a bar before being elected?). Until he's gone, I think I'll stay on this side of town, thanks.
This from only the third person on this thread to actually provide an e-mail address. |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by Babs
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 Sep 2004
|
Many kudos to Danielle for telling that story on WILL. I heard it too, and I'm glad they aired it.
I wouldn't be surprised if Tod isn't bitter towards Danielle for beating Carolyn Kearns so soundly in the primary for her council seat. Not that that would explain his behavior (which he desperately needs to held accountable for). But he now only has one evil minion instead of two, and that's got to sting a little. I honestly expected better from Milt Otto, but he doesn't represent me, thankfully.
(Something this stupid will happen in Champaign sooner rather than later. For example, one of their city council members just got indicted for involuntary manslaughter; you can read about it here: http://www.news-gazette.com/story.cfm?Number=16669.) |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by coi
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 Sep 2004
|
Well, what a convienent story. It sounds to me like one of your toadies got a little too ambitious after the city shut down the death trap you had in your back room, leaked a little fable that he was assaulted by the mayor, and then you all backpeddled when it looked like you'd have to take city hall head on. Is that about right?
Let's read between the lines here, and apply the same kind of knee-jerk criticism that you give to everything else that's scribbled here. I'm suprised you haven't linked Satterthwaite to the Saudi royal family yet. |
|
How Did Tod Get You Here?: Promises or Threats? |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 Sep 2004
|
So, coi, is Tod blackmailing you or did he promise you a council seat?
Just for the record, our space passed several fire inspections. The issues that closed the space were minor and quickly corrected. The thing that kept the public assembly space closed was the fact that we don't have two bathrooms in our current space. Any claim about there being a 'death trap' in our former back room is nothing but over-heated hyperbole. It had two properly marked fire exits.
Besides, the mayor himself was aware, as were a number of city staff, of our use of the space, since we had consulted with them about its use. The sudden decision to enforce rules that no one had seen fit to bring to our attention prior to this was, to say the least, rather suspicious. They also acknowledged that they overreacted and have dealt subsequently with such situations at other locations with other groups in a far more low key and circumspect manner than they did with the IMC. I would call that suspicious, but I'm sure you'll think it's all in a day's work for Tod.
Again, the chair projecting incident did occur. It was so ridiculous and off the wall that we could hardly believe it ourselves, but it is nonetheless true. We deal with facts here and you might have more credibility if you did too. Now, go ask Tod for a free candy bar -- he owns you one. |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by coi
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 Sep 2004
|
1) Neither. I don't even know him.
2) Shoddy wiring and getting shut down by the fire dept is what really happened.
See
http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/imc/2003-July/004108.html
3) I think you're exaggerating. Here's the penchant for conspiracy theory I was alluding to before.
3) I think you're lying. Guess we'll never know. How convenient for you. |
|
Thanks for Your Opinion |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 Sep 2004
|
1. Of course, you're merely a disinterested, neutral observer. It's obvious from your impartial take on things that everyone who is reading this will consider you an objective and non-partisan commentator... or maybe not.
2. Thanks for pointing out that the previously-overlooked-by -the-city problems were all fixed quickly. BTW, the space did pass inspection and was approved by the city for use by 49 persons or less. This is completely compatible with the fact that what kept the back space from reopening was the lack of adequate bathroom facilities, which would have required two bathrooms to be constructed (the IMC did not do this, since we lease our current sapce and the landlord was unwilling to renovate to provide this), since the minor problems that the city found were all resolved. If you want to argue something differently, you'll have to support it with facts.
3. Your opinion is... well, your opinion. And apparently that's all it is, since you have chosen to avoid a discussion of the facts, versus merely repeating your opinion.
4. Again, the public view of your opinion will depend on you offering facts to support it. Since you've offered none, I won't let the facts stand in your way of offering your opinion again. However, repetition is not correlation, so your lack of factual information to support your opinion speaks volumes about the credence people should give to it. |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by coi
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 Sep 2004
|
I didn't say I was neutral or disinterested. I did say that I don't have any connection to Satterthwaite and that I've never met him. If you're inferring that my motives are suspect, I suppose the same could be said of you and your recouting of the alleged chair throwing incident.
What is certain is that your failure to mention the electrical problem and to imply that the plumbing was your facility's code problem was disingenuous. Saying that it "passed several fire inspections" is kind of like saying "sure, I was sober, before I got drunk". Maybe you should re-read the little formal logic lesson that you gave in the end of your own remarks. |
|
and |
by coi
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 Sep 2004
|
|
All of the above reinforces my original point: that Chynoweth has her own little propaganda machine here (one that has the audacity to call itself "independent!"), that routinely bends the truth, and calls into question the charges leveled against Mr. Satterthwaite. |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 Sep 2004
|
reality: "The sudden decision to enforce rules that no one had seen fit to bring to our attention prior to this was, to say the least, rather suspicious."
I think the adjective you're looking for is "Pilandesque."
coi: "3) I think you're lying."
Imagine how much impact that opinion carries. What could possibly have more credibility that the speculations of anonyms, especially one who thinks the number after 3 is 3? Hell, _I'm_ sure convinced. Who wouldn't be?
@%< |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by coi
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 Sep 2004
|
1) "What could possibly have more credibility that the speculations of anonyms.."
Duly noted Mr/s... gehrig
(No verified email address)
And, by no means in order of importance,
2) Go fuck yourself.
3) Go fuck yourself.
4) Please forgive the typographical error. |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by Hobbitses
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 Sep 2004
|
|
Wow, coi, your style of communication is remarkably similar to our esteemed mayor's! |
|
Chill Out, coi |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 Sep 2004
|
Just a word to the wise, c.o.i., but the tenor of your commentary is descending to the level that is generally considered to be "Off Topic" according to our website use policy.
You may wish to review it at your earliest convenience, and certainly before you make any more replies like your last one. See:
http://www.ucimc.org/mod/info/display/policy/index.php
Just for the record, you're getting a chance to air your views here, so this is hardly anybody's "propaganda machine." We're not stenographers to anybody's power structure, so it may be shocking to you that you can find news, information, and opinions here that you won't find in the News-Gazette. We tend to think of that as a good thing. Please do your part to uphold the good of the commons by sticking to the subject and avoiding purely personal attacks. |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by coi
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Sep 2004
|
Oh. When you say it like that, it sounds so nice. Well, let's not scehdule that group hug just yet.
See below, actually directing stenography in the most literal sense.
http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/imc-radio/2003-January/000034.html
I can't think of another example of an elected official double-dipping in (and I use this term loosely in your case) reporting news like what is seen on this website. Maybe you all can slide into Dan Rather's spot when he retires. |
|
straining at gnats |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Sep 2004
|
So let's see. A member of the city council tells a reporter/resident when the council meeting will be rebroadcast, without additional comment, and also supplies a contact person if the reporter/resident wants to track down a copy of the tape.
Nefarious business, I tell you, nefarious, nefarious business! Heads must roll!
Now, coi, how long did you spend scouring the mail archive for this shameful, shameful -- and did I mention nefarious -- example?
@%< |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by coi
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Sep 2004
|
A whole 10 seconds or so; the first thing that popped up. The poster above denied coordinating their coverage with elected officials or being "stenographers for anyone's power structure".
Another 10 seconds invested: here we have so-called "independent" media coordinating for a congressional candidate. Whoopsy-daisy.
http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/imc/2002-October/003275.html
I sure hope you're not filing as a tax exempt organization. Might get in some hot water there.
You're right. Now that you mention it, the first example really isn't such a big deal. |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by Joe Futrelle
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Sep 2004
|
I'm shocked, shocked that a mailing list open to the public would allow itself to receive an email about a political campaign!
Yes, operating a public message board certainly constitutes "coordinating with" whoever posts to it. I guess the IMC is also "coordinating with" the hawkers of this sex potion as well:
http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/imc/2002-October/003277.html
See you all in jail!!! |
|
don't forget the flying monkeys |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Sep 2004
|
Ah, so we're "coordinating" with city council members, would-be-congressmen, _and_ little purple pill distributers? Egad! What vast conspiracy have I stumbled onto?
And when do we get to the part about the flying monkeys and the secret UFO base at the North Pole? One of them sent this inscrutable message from the future:
http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/imc/2019-March/date.html
@%< |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by coi
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Sep 2004
|
Hey, blow it off if you want. But if the you acted on the email and it became a "story" in your "news" (read quotes with maximum sarcastic emphasis), yeah, that could absolutely be construed as coordination. The IRS has been pretty aggressive of late on this stuff, so for that reason alone you might want to be more careful - if not for the inherent ethical conflict of a so-called "news" organization serving as a conduit for partisan political activity.
But that's right - you're just here to "uphold the good of the commons". I forgot already. |
|
snakes |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Sep 2004
|
coi: "But that's right - you're just here to "uphold the good of the commons". I forgot already."
You're right. Got it the first try. Now, if the moderator of the IMC mailing list intervened to pull some campaign messages and not others, then you might have a sliver of a chance of a possibility of making it look like there's a potential for an appearance of a shadow of electorial impropriety.
Instead, we've got another case of what we could call the Satterthwaite Snake-Shake -- where someone holds up a rubber snake and says that there's a possibility of a shadow of a chance that under certain circumstances that snake might appear to look maybe real to someone, and therefore we should automatically treat the snake as if it were real, including shouting "POTENTIAL SNAKE! ARGGGGH!POTENTIAL SNAKE!"
@%< |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by coi
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Sep 2004
|
No. The issue is not merely getting messages from political candidates. Of course you can't control that - although I see no evidence of you discouraging it or questioning its propriety, either. The problem is serving as a conduit for those messages, especially as a tax exempt organization, and worse, as trying to pass the whole thing off as "news".
So, okay, getting it is the first part. No harm, no foul. But here, we have the second part -
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/4669
Are you still clinging to the "we're not stenographers for anyone's power structure" line? |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Sep 2004
|
coi: "Are you still clinging to the "we're not stenographers for anyone's power structure" line?"
Yep. For exactly the same reason: it's true. If there had been a similar post for other candidates, they would have remained up. As long as the IMC editorial policy remains neutral in regards to candidates or parties -- that is, it doesn't hide campaign information based on which candidate is which -- then it's just another POTENTIAL SNAKE you're waving.
Now, most of the campaign-related information here -- what little there is -- tends to be lefty, but that's not a real surprise, given that lefty candidates are going to want to fish where the lefty fish are. That doesn't make it illegal.
It's really very simple. The IMC organization doesn't endorse candidates. Some IMC members do, but they're not speaking for the IMC when they do it. And this distinction is something the IMC has been conscious of all along. So you may as well quit the Perry Mason impersonation, because after all your sound and fury, you're still left waving a rubber snake.
My suggestion: give up.
@%< |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by coi
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Sep 2004
|
I'm not sure I can come up with something as catchy as the perry mason/rubber snake mixed metaphor (huh?), so I'll just keep it simple: it's completely inappropriate for a group of people trying to pass themselves as a news organization to engage in partisan political activity (you're soliciting attendance to political fundraising event, for God's sake!), and yes, it may be a violation of your tax status, particularly when you are trying to appeal to an audience beyond your immediate membership. I don't think I'd drop the dime on you - although maybe I should for using the condescending, smarmy tone you and your fellow inhabitants of Campustown Fantasyland seem to enjoy addressing me with - but someone eventually will, so it would behoove you to clean up your act, if not solely for the sake of, you know, honesty and integrity.
These two things make ucimc.org as guilty of the double standards you accuse Satterthwaite of having. |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by Wendy Edwards
wedwards (nospam) uiuc.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
21 Sep 2004
|
We went through something like this with in the print group and determined that no, we could not do any kind of electioneering as the UCIMC. Of course, individual members are free to engage in any political activity they want.
As far as the public newswire and the space, I'd guess that we have to allow reasonable use for any legitimate political group. I think we could safely turn down hate groups, but if we rent space to the Green Party, we probably need to also be willing to rent to the Republican and Democratic parties. Practically speaking, I believe that the Dems and Republicans both have county headquarters in C-U and would be unlikely to be interested in the IMC space. |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Sep 2004
|
coi: "perry mason/rubber snake mixed metaphor"
Technically, it's a perry mason/macbeth/rubber snake mixed metaphor. Not to be confused with a perry mason/faulkner/rubber snake mixed metaphor. The distinction is fine but crucial.
Anyway, sorry you're having so much trouble following a very simple argument. Sure, UCIMC has been used as a conduit for campaign information, but it is a non-partisan conduit, and that makes all the difference. Being a non-partisan organization preserves the tax-exempt status of the organization. If someone had posted a meeting time for "Students for Jack Ryan" -- back when there was a Jack Ryan -- then it would also have appeared here, because it would be partisan to remove one campaign's notices and not another.
I just don't think that anyone did post stuff for, say, Alan Keyes, because most right-wingers don't do anything but troll here.
To lose tax-exempt status, the site would have to show an organizational bias toward a particular candidate or party. The fact that people representing one candidate posted an article and his opposition doesn't make IMC partisan, because it wasn't the IMC deciding not to publish notices from the other candidates.
Is this really so hard to follow?
Don't think that you're the only one to think of these issues, by the way. This was all gone over with a legal fine-toothed comb a few years back when UCIMC first applied for the tax-exempt status -- maybe even being, I believe, the first IMC to do so.
coi: "although maybe I should for using the condescending, smarmy tone you and your fellow inhabitants of Campustown Fantasyland seem to enjoy addressing me with"
Ah, maybe should I have stuck with multiple quotes from Dick Cheney on the Senate floor ("Go fuck yourself"), as you did?
Here's a better idea -- why not _join_ the IMC, and see for yourself how it works?
@%< |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by coi
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Sep 2004
|
1- wendy clearly not getting it. I'll move on.
2- I'm sorry you're having such a time following a simple argument; if your organization is passing off advertisements for political events as news - particularly in the moderated stories that your editors choose to run, and who ultimately determine what is featured here - that doesn't make you non-partisan. I'll let the IRS determine for themselves if you're "non-partisan" per the tax code or not. Either way, it's not quite on the up-and-up, even for the shoddy propaganda that gets called journalism here.
3- I would much prefer the Cheney quote. There are people in this world who actually prefer straight talk instead of effete, rehashed debate club drivel (remember when grad school was a means to an end?). Your failure to understand this speaks volumes about you.
and
4 - No thank you. See EVERYTHING above. Are you kidding me? |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by Wendy Edwards
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Sep 2004
|
|
Whether I'm indeed "getting it" or not is a moot point, but I think your idea of moving on is a good one. |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Sep 2004
|
coi: "if your organization is passing off advertisements for political events as news - particularly in the moderated stories that your editors choose to run, and who ultimately determine what is featured here - that doesn't make you non-partisan."
It does if such stories -- not "advertisements" -- are treated equally for all candidates. But you can't publish stories that nobody submits.
coi: "I'll let the IRS determine for themselves"
The law is clear. Sorry that you don't like the result. But on the other hand, who cares whether you like the result? It's not your decision to make, and now that you've put your two cents in, exactly nothing has changed.
coi: "it's not quite on the up-and-up"
The Satterthwaite Snake Shake rides again.
coi: "effete"
Ding ding ding! You said the secret word. First time in my life I've ever been called "effete." I thought that word bit the dust when it became too closely associated with Spiro Agnew's attack vocabulary, right up there with "nattering nabobs of negativism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiro_Agnew
Welcome to 1972!
Anyway, are you through waving your snake, so to speak, or are you going to keep shaking it?
@%< |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by coi
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Sep 2004
|
Yes, the law is clear (and actually, there are some things I don't like about it). At risk of doing some of your own legwork, here's the guidance that the IRS gave to the US council of churches a few years back (emphasis mine between asterisks) -
Political campaigning prohibited. All exempt organizations, including churches and religious organizations, are strictly prohibited from supporting or opposing any candidate for elective public office. The proscribed activity includes contributions to campaign funds *as well as verbal or written* public statements by or on behalf of the organization supporting or opposing a candidate for public office. Revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of excise taxes may result when an exempt entity violates this prohibition. *Even if only a small portion of propaganda* was deemed to constitute political intervention, the organization’s tax-exempt status *would be lost*; the prohibition is absolute (IRS Letter Ruling, 1999007021). |
|
You Really Ought to Learn to Take Advice |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Sep 2004
|
coi,
Dose of Reality has already pointed out the link to the disclaimer, but I'll repeat it here since you seem to have trouble follwing even the most basic of arguments if they diverge from you preformed opinion:
http://www.ucimc.org/mod/info/display/disclaimer/index.php
In general, the disclaimer applies to all the activities of the IMC. Individual IMC members and the public, you for instance, are free to express your own opinion, whatever it might be.
The same thing applies to all of our open email lists. We are, in part, a news organization, so there is nothing sinister about political information being passed along with or through our various media, so long as it does not violate our various use policies, none of which favors any specific political outlook (for instance no threats against the president, even if you don't like him, because that is illegal.)
As has been already pointed out repeatedly (just in case you weren't reading closely enough to understand it) if we chose to restrict the use of our media to favor specific candidates or positions, you might have a leg to stand on. So long as you're doing an intensive review of the website, you should note that there has been a wide variety of support and opposition for various political ideas and candidates here and in the rest of our media, NONE of which represents an official position by the UC IMC. So the ruling you just cited does not apply, since it is an organizational imperative to avoid taking such specific political positions. You simply won't find them, but keep looking -- it's obvious you've got time to waste on meaningless drivel.
As it is, you look very much like the famous cartoon of the restaurant with the "Frog Leg Special" sign on the wall as a diner looks at the kitchen door being opened by an obvioulsy impaired frog, who is pushing it open in his little box with wheels that he uses to get around now that he's become part of the main course.
If you are still struggling with this logical conundrum, think of another example of the media just the far side of Wright Street, WEFT 90.1FM. I'll bet you've heard a political opinion or two there. In fact, I'll bet you've heard a lot of opinions there. The same with AM580. They're still on the air and retain they tax-exempt status, just as we do.
So your pitiful attempt to impose censorship of speech by intimidation for stuff you don't like hearing will fall just a flat as Tod's attempt to do the same with UPTV.
Here's a tip: Don't ever serve as your own attorney or logician. You'd be a fool. |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by coi
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Sep 2004
|
I'd give you the same advice. And you're the one that isn't getting it when you say "if we chose to restrict the use of our media to favor specific candidates or positions, you might have a leg to stand on." In your own disclaimer, you state just that.
There are clearly two different types of fake - news written here: that provided by the public at large; and that written and approved by your editorial board. I think that a review of the latter will show that they not only do not reflect equal time, but that they urge the public beyond your immediate membership to engage in specific political and electoral activities. That's what not only runs you afoul of your tax status (and what also makes it crummy journalism, but I'll leave it at that for the time being).
The other thing that I suspect you'll find here is calls to action on actions of Congress and or state government. Also prohibited for tax-exempt organizations.
Hey, do what you want. It's your hide. |
|
Be More Specific |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Sep 2004
|
Well, coi, I don't see anything referring to a particular politics in the disclaimer. You refer to an "editorial board" and imply that there are stories "written and approved by your editorial board" that these are stories "supporting or opposing any candidate for elective public office" that include "public statements by or on behalf of the organization supporting or opposing a candidate for public office..."
I challenge to find any such story with a byline that reads "UC IMC Editorial Board (or group or whatever)." They simply don't exist.
There are stories that express opinions by people who also happen to be members of the IMC in various capacities, but there simply aren't any of the type you claim. Individual IMC members do not surrender their constitutional rights to free speech or their rights to post here, but you are certainly confused and wrong if you equate stories they post as being an official statement by the UC IMC.
In fact, those of us who work on the website work hard to maintain a website where, "The newswire is a virtual commons that the IMC intends to be open fairly and equally to all who would want to use it. As a commons, there are basic ground rules that allow the commons to be fairly available and useful to as many people as possible."
I challenge you to find any post that was removed for a political reason. Your long string of illogic, intimidation, and just plain wrong assertions is but one example of the variety of opinion you'll find on this website. The kind of posts that do get removed typically tend toward the type I had to warn you about earlier, but even there, as you've already discovered, we tend to take a very flexible view in the hopes that people will bring their posting behavior into compliance with our editorial policy. But that policy specifically does NOT allow anything to be removed because of its political content.
In fact, it states "When considering posts containing speech that may be unacceptable and detrimental to the newswire's status as a commons, the IMC Steering Group should keep in mind principles of free speech which advocate for using more speech to counter unacceptable speech." Thus your opinion, which is not only factually incorrect, but something which I completely disagree with, remains here. It is not within my power to silence your political speech, even if it does support Mayor Tod. Thus your claim that we selectively allow postings that we favor to remain is demonstrably false right here in this thread.
I'll be waiting for you to post a link to an article that actually lists the UC IMC as supporting or opposing a candidate or legislation within the realm of electoral politics (note that this is specifically not an invitation to post more stuff where you simply make up stuff about what it represents -- you've beaten that horse to death and are still on the wrong side of the truth and the law.) The organizing principle that UC IMC is based on is a fundamentally anarchist one, even though we have members with a wide variety of political views. Even if the law was changed to allow what you have falsely claimed we do, on principle we do not support electoral politics as a group, although people who do so are free to post here about it. You simply won't find the UC IMC collective officially supporting or opposing any candidate. |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by coi
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Sep 2004
|
"I challenge to find any such story with a byline that reads "UC IMC Editorial Board (or group or whatever)." They simply don't exist."
I think we're confusing terms. There is indeed a group of you that decide which articles are featured on the main section of the website (not in the little comment box I'm using here), is there not? If so, and you're either promoting events for a candidate for office, or if you're urging the public to take grassroots action on a law proposed by congress or state government , then you're doing what you're not supposed to be doing as a tax exempt organization.
I can't tell if this is one of those that you and your editors chose for the main section, but if so, this is what I'm talking about
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/8218
I again refer you to the IRS document above.
To sum up: what you're doing here is outrageously biased and misleading, is propaganda posing as news, is intentionally used to anonymously malign public official, and in certain circumstances, is probably illegal.
It sure as hell isn't "charity", as described in your tax exempt status! And that you're getting a break from the government (which, based on your statement above, you don't even support the existence of!) is one of the most outrageous, disingenuous things I've ever seen. |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by wayward
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Sep 2004
|
|
coi, can you provide any examples where we've hidden articles or refused to rent our space for purely political reasons? |
|
It's Not Hard to Understand |
by Darrin
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Sep 2004
|
...that the IMC website is an OPEN POSTING forum for INDIVIDUALS who each have the right to post whatever they want (provided it doesn't contain hate speech, personal attacks, or utter nonsense), INCLUDING explicit endorsement of a political candidate from ANY PARTY. There is no "editorial board" to decide what gets posted, although there is a "webmaster" who has been empowered by the IMC Steering Committee to hide off-color or off-topic posts from public view.
The IMC as an organization takes NO STANCE on any political candidate or issue. Not only would this be "against the rules" as coi points out, but nearly impossible since it would mean reaching concensus (ie unanimous agreement) among ALL of the hundreds of members of the IMC. While many (but certainly not all) members would probably fall on the "left" side of the political spectrum, there would surely be disagreement amongst Democrats, Greens, left Libertarians, and those who might disregard electoral politics entirely about specific endorsements.
A final, very important point that coi clearly does not understand is that the Independent Media movement rejects the notion of journalistic "objectivity." Unlike Fox News or corporate media in general, there is no hiding behind the rhetoric of "fair and balanced", but a recognition (and indeed an embracing) of the fact that ALL so-called "news" has a bias, so why not make it obvious?
One result of having an open-posting, non-objective newswire is that it invites lively discussion and debate rather than passive media consumption and complacency, which is vital to our society. While coi's postings might be frustratingly redundant, they're fostering an informative exchange and furthering the ideals of indymedia and democracy as a whole. Yay! |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by coi
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Sep 2004
|
Read your own by-laws. Either you're a corporate entity with dues-paying members, or you're not. You can't have it both ways. If you're communicating beyond your immediate membership, either about an individual political campaign, or about state or federal legislation, you're engaging in making a grassroots appeal, no matter what the instrument is that you use.
You said: "Not only would this be "against the rules" as coi points out, but nearly impossible since it would mean reaching concensus (ie unanimous agreement) among ALL of the hundreds of members of the IMC"
This is misleading and incorrect. Non-exempt organizations do it all the time (labor unions, corporations, etc). But you're right, you can't do it (even though you are anyway).
There is, in fact, what amounts to an editorial board that determines what becomes "featured" on ucimc.org. If your choices of what to "feature" is prompted by elected officials, you're breaking the rules. I don't know about the use of your physical space, but even a glancing look at the "hidden" area of your website will show dozens of examples of that anything listed on the "newswire" of a right wing /conservative nature is banished there under the catch-all phrase of "off topic". If you are capable of doing this, AND you determine the main features of the site, then the notion that you're just a community sounding board that you have no control over is obviously not true. That you do all of this under the guise of an untaxed "charitable and educational" organization is inexcusable.
I clearly do understand your disdain for objectivity, and it makes you no better than Fox News and their ilk.
As I said - while I think it really sucks that MY taxes are being used to support your political activities - do what you want. . Just don't be surprised if you're later penalized for it. |
|
More Smoke from coi, Who Has Reached a Conclusion Before S/he Went Looking for Facts |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Sep 2004
|
coi wrote:
"I think we're confusing terms. There is indeed a group of you that decide which articles are featured on the main section of the website (not in the little comment box I'm using here), is there not? If so, and you're either promoting events for a candidate for office, or if you're urging the public to take grassroots action on a law proposed by congress or state government , then you're doing what you're not supposed to be doing as a tax exempt organization."
Yes, I do think you're rather confused about what you're talking about. Items that are moved to the Feature section are done so because they have wider interest to the public. This is not done irregardless of the fact that any posting does or does not contain political statements of the _POSTER_ (NOT UCIMC), but because a particular article contains news and/or opinions that represent "issues that the mainstream media neglects" and is of wide enough interest to the users of this website to make it worthwhile to move there.
The simple placement of items within a website repesents nothing else except that and it certainly doesn't represent any kind of political endorsement by UC IMC. Both articles and features scroll off the mainpage and into the archives, where they remain available, regardless of the opinions they may or may not contain. Making something into a Feature simply means it stays on the front page a little while longer. In no way does it represent any endorsement of the opinions contained with in it. It is simply a matter of convenience for our readers. Would you have prefered that your lengthy attempts at rebuttal have scrolled off the front page sooner? Probably not, since you seem so dedicated to expressing your opinion. We think the popularity of the thread, based on the comments it has so far received, demonstrates that it was a good decision to make it a Feature and keep it easily available.
coi writes further:
"I can't tell if this is one of those that you and your editors chose for the main section, but if so, this is what I'm talking about
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/8218 "
Well, I can tell you that it is not a Feature. Compare that link to the one at the top of this article. The reason why it is not a feature is that it is an announcement. _Generally_ we do not make announcements into Features, although, once again, we occassionally do so if they have wide community interest or if they specifically promote UC IMC events and fundraisers.
For instance, if the president (of any party) were to schedule a visit to our area, even if it was strictly a campaign visit, and someone posted an announcement of it to the Newswire, it might very likely be moved to the Feature section. Why? Because it would be _news_ and, even though it would likely be reported in other media, it would be something that our readers would want to know about. They might want to organize a protest or (for a very few) they might want to turn out to support him; in either case, readers can use the comments section to organize as they wish.
While you pooh-pooh the site's news function, the main reason we exist is to cover the news. Unless it was somehow titled as an official statement of either support or opposition by the UC IMC collective, any such article simply does not violate the law, whatever you might think of our style of journalism.
coi further states:
"To sum up: what you're doing here is outrageously biased and misleading, is propaganda posing as news, is intentionally used to anonymously malign public official, and in certain circumstances, is probably illegal."
Those who post to the site can do any of this and unless it is specifically illegal speech, it will most likely stay (the exceptions are covered in our editorial policy, which actually needs a few details updated, none of which have anything to do with political content, but how we deal with abusive posting practices.) If you don't like it, you can say so right below the article, instead of having a long delay while your letter to the editor makes it's way to the editorial board of traditional media, where someone can choose to publish or not publish your opinion. At Indymedia, your opinion is NOT subjected to any kind of prior restraint (unlike, say, currently how UPTV is operating. You might do well to turn your microscope on them, if you want to find someone engaging in censorship.) Even if you did violate our policies in such a manner as to get your stuff hidden, it is still easily available to anyone by looking in the Hidden Files. BTW, there is a good reason behind everything in the Hidden Files and none of it is related to the political opinion of the poster. Rather, much of it has to do with controlling abusive posting practices that discourage other users from using this site by exploiting our Open Publishing policy. For instance, if you went back to the F-you stuff again, you might find your own output in the Hidden files, but it won't be because of your opinion, simple beause it discourages other people from posting because of your personal attacks.
Our members and readers cover the news. Those who choose to offer their take on anything do so solely on the basis that they are offering their own opinions. They are NOT offering it on the basis of any kind of official endorsemnt by UC IMC. To give you yet another example, if you use a telephone to call a bomb threat into the courthouse, the phone company is not held liable for your threat. The same thing applies here. If you have a beef, take it up in comments.
This also does not preclude any candidate from offering their own opinions. I find it rather interesting that you keep picking on the Greens, since there is plenty of other such material from a wide range of political opinions here on the site. If you think the Greens suck, then you can comment on it. If Tod, for instance, were to want to post a statement here, there's nothing holding him back.
What holds most of the mainstream political hacks back is that they are far more comforatble with the mediated media, where their lies, obfuscations, and even occassional truths do NOT get immediate feedback from those who use this website. I just have to assume that their absence is because they are unwilling to face the public in an open and umediated forum. There's nothing we've done to hold them back, just their own lack of desire. If you think Tod's side of the story, endlessly and often uncritically repeated in places like the News-Gazette, hasn't received enough exposure, it's up to you to do something about it. But that will only be your opinion (or his, as the case may be) and it certainly would not be in violation of the law if it was posted here.
Yeah, I think there's some confusion going on here, but it seems to be a monopoly of yours. Throughout this thread, you have shown repeatedly that you are more than willing to jump to a conclusion based on nothing except your own prejudices, then you cast about for evidence to support it, without finding anything of substance. Then when the evidence crumbles before everyone's eyes, you go back to the vaults in a vain attempt to come up with something to save face. I would suggest that perhaps it is time to examine whether your initial premise was based on anything except the fact that you read something that upset you. For that, we have comments.
All I can tell you (once again) is that we are both well aware of what our obligations are as a 501c3 and what our policy is to prevent our running afoul of the law. We conciously work to avoid any such violation, something which has been and will remain our policy. |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by coi
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Sep 2004
|
This is getting tedious and I'm not going to keep repeating myself. Before I say goodbye and good luck, understand that the reason I keep "picking" on the Green is beause their members running for office seem to populate your ranks in sizeable numbers , and I think that their presence in your internal deliberations (as evidenced by the materials on found on the http://lists.cu.groogroo.com site) is influencing what information related to their campaigns is (and isn't ) present here. "Charity" begins at home, so it seems.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled character assassination... |
|
Well, Don't Leave Mad, Just Leave If You Don't Want to Discuss the Facts |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Sep 2004
|
Just my own take on things (please don't blame the IMC, thus my own little disclaimer in case you want to read something deeper into it, coi), but your objective throughout this entire thread has been to change the subject and try to intimidate the IMC.
I raised substantive issues that seemed to irritate you, but you seem to be totally unable to discuss the facts.
I think the hobbit was right: You sound and act a whole lot like the mayor, especially for a person who claims you don't even know him. The bullying behavior, the unsubstantiated ethics changes, the red herrings, and the none-to-subtle attempts to get the IMC to engage in self-censorship to avoid your threats all smack of the kind of character that the mayor has already demonstrated himself.
You really ought to apply for a spot on one of the numerous city commissions he has increasingly turned into his petty political playground of sycophants.
And please don't come back unless you're willing to engage in discussing things at a rational level. Is there anything in my article that you'd like to factually dispute? I'd be glad to respond to that, but I think responding to children and bullies in the midst of temper tantrums only encourages them. |
|
FWIW |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Sep 2004
|
Well, it looks again like coi punches the clock at 5pm, just like he did yesterday (starting time is right after 9am, I noticed). Kind of makes you wonder who's paying his paycheck, for several reasons...
BTW, I would be just thrilled if Tod came on here and made an attempt to refute anything I wrote. Prove me wrong, Tod. Unless someone doses him with truth serum, or better yet, the state's attorney drags him in front of a jury instead of wasting taxpayers' dollars proesecuting minority journalists, I don't really expect that, but you never know.
And I'm pretty certain the IMC would let the mayor have his say. |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by Tricksy Hobbitses
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Sep 2004
|
|
coi is looking for his preciousssssss |
|
Blobbity Blobbity Blah |
by Darrin
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Sep 2004
|
[I] said: "Not only would this be "against the rules" as coi points out, but nearly impossible since it would mean reaching concensus (ie unanimous agreement) among ALL of the hundreds of members of the IMC"
coi said: This is misleading and incorrect. Non-exempt organizations do it all the time (labor unions, corporations, etc). But you're right, you can't do it (even though you are anyway).
I say: Unlike unions, corporations, etc., the IMC uses a consensus model, which is explicitly non-hierarchical, and is also not the typical democratic rule of the majority probably used by non-exempt organizations. This model gives each member equal say in the decision-making process, and does indeed demand unanimity.
And you have yet to give an example of when the IMC *as a whole* (as opposed to an individual) has put forward an endorsement of any kind.
coi said: I clearly do understand your disdain for objectivity, and it makes you no better than Fox News and their ilk.
I say: There is no "ilk". As I said, ALL news without exception is biased to a certain degree. What makes Fox particularly despicable is that they repeatedly claim to be "fair and balanced", whereas Indymedia does not. This alone, in my opinion, makes Indymedia "better", but the important point is that the mission of Indymedia is not to be better than corporate news, but to be an alternative to it that provides a forum for under-represented viewpoints and widens the range of acceptable debate, which in mainstream "news" is very narrow indeed.
I agree with coi that this thread is getting tedious, and also agree with Dose of Reality that coi’s unsubstantiated accusations and overall threatening tone of "you people better watch what you’re doing, or else" does sound suspiciously Tod-like.
Over and out. |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by thorn
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Sep 2004
|
|
Satterthwaite, your days (in office) are numbered. |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by fearful of retaliation
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Sep 2004
|
I don't always see eye to eye on issues the IMC reports on, though sometimes I do. This is one of those times. I'm glad Danielle Chynoweth is speaking out about the mayor, city officials and their tactics. I can't for fear of retaliation. Good job Danielle on bringing the real issues to light publicly.
.... COI, don't bother responding to this one. I refuse to waste my time arguing with idiots like you. : ) |
|
Re: Satterthwaite's Smokescreen: Charge Others With What You Actually Are Up To |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
27 Sep 2004
|
I would like to clear up some of the confusion that has resulted from coi's comments on non-profit organizations and their tax-exempt status.
First of all, UCIMC by its very structure is a non-profit organization; its status as a non-profit organization can not be reasonably disputed by anyone. There are neither owners nor stockholders of UCIMC, therefore it isn't a for-profit organization. By default, it is a non-profit organization whether it is tax-exempt or not. As an example, one of the local hospitals, Provena Covenant Medical Center, recently lost its tax-exempt status with the Illinois Department of Revenue; nonetheless, it is still a non-profit organization. There is nothing illegal about operating a non-profit organization that lacks tax-exempt status.
And so, what is at issue here, is whether UCIMC, as a non-profit organization, qualifies for tax-exempt status under state and federal law.
coi's comments imply that the IRS determines tax-exempt status, but this is only partially true: both the Illinois Dept. of Revenue and the IRS determine various kinds of tax-exempt status, nor are there determinations necessarily in agreement with each other.
In the case of the IRS, they determine the exemption from corporate income taxes. If UCIMC lost this tax-exemption, it would be of little consequence as there are no profits to tax.
The Illinois Department of Revenue, on the other hand, determines at least 3 different kinds of tax-exemptions: 1) exemption from the state income tax, 2) exemption from the local property tax, and 3) exemption from the state sales tax.
The laws governing each of these three kinds of exemptions are somewhat different from each other. Even if UCIMC did not qualify for any of these state-wide exemptions, this would have little impact on the operations of UCIMC as well.
Again, this is because there are no significant profits to tax , and UCIMC doesn't own significant tangible property to tax (as I understand the current situation). This could change if UCIMC purchased the current building that they are renting in downtown Urbana -- then they could be subjected to local property taxes if they lost this exemption. But as things currently stand, UCIMC is renting the building from a private owner (who is operating a for-profit business). This means that there are already property tax assessments being made on the building that UCIMC rents, which they are already paying for through their rent.
This is contrary to coi's assertion that UCIMC is not paying property taxes -- in fact, they are paying local property taxes in spite of being a tax-exempt non-profit organization. Therefore, the threat that coi is directing toward UCIMC is non-existent, for all practical purposes, because loss of tax-exempt status would not affect its financial operations in any significant way.
Thus, coi's threat is just another rubber snake that is being tossed around. |
|
