In the early 1700’s there was a German printer by the name of Peter Zenger in New York who founded a newspaper called the New York Weekly Journal and his paper was in opposition to an official newspaper that supported a suspicious Governor of New York William Cosby. Peter Zenger thought people should be able to read more than one side of a story. The New York Weekly Journal published some spicy articles saying the Governor accepted bribes, he took away people’s land and he rigged elections. The Governor wanted the paper stopped so he had Zenger arrested, charged with libel and sent to jail. Zenger had some influential lawyer friends who wrote some of the articles but the Governor had Zenger’s lawyers disbarred. A man by the name of Andrew Hamilton, a friend of Benjamin Franklin and William Penn, appeared to defend Peter Zenger. The Attorney General stated that TRUTH was no defense. Today to prove libel there must be a known stated lie and that lie must hurt a person. In the 1700’s it was a crime to say anything bad, true or untrue, about the king and the Attorney General said the Governor was just like the king. Lawyer Hamilton speaking softly said “Free men have a right to complain when hurt. They have a right to oppose arbitrary power by speaking and writing TRUTHS…to assert with courage the sense they have of the blessings of liberty, the value they put upon it…their resolution…to prove it one of the greatest blessings heaven can bestow… There is no libel if the truth is told. The question before the court and you, gentlemen of the jury, is not of small nor private concern but is the best cause. It is the cause of LIBERTY.” Andrew Zenger was found not guilty. (Freedom. A history of us, Joy Hakim,Oxford University Press. 2003)
The above bit of history is presented here for the purpose of emphasizing that the challenge we all face is to discern when reading an article whether it is full of factual TRUTH or fabricated and twisted truth. I believe the articles published in the First Capitol News can be proven beyond any doubt with factual evidence. Dr. A.W.Tozer wrote, “ A true and safe leader is likely to be one who has no desire to lead, but is forced into a position of leadership by the inward pressures of the Holy Spirit and the press of the external situation.” I’m quite sure it is the “press of external situations” that motivates the First Capitol News staff to publish its newspaper weekly. At the same time I wish to state that the entire statement by Dr. Tozer is what motivated Ms. Greer to seek a seat on the City Council. There is a scripture found in 1 Samuel 16:7 that says, “God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” Which further explains why Ms. Greer is seated on City Council.
No matter how a statement of fact is stated, a believable truth can only be stated one way because it can be proven with actual events or documents. A true statement should never indicate an opinion within its content. Today the residents of the City of St Charles are bombarded with opinionated statements that in many cases are hurtful and demeaning to the character and integrity of two of the council representatives as well as directed toward other members also. There should be honesty displayed in articles of criticism and to be critical of someone whom the individual making the statement has never met is incomprehensible. Stating they do not like another Council member so they are going after this person is beyond totally ridiculous and are acting as grade schoolyard bullies. I’ll not dignify the individuals I am criticizing or give any more credence to their wild statements any further.
On behalf of Dottie Greer I want to say THANK YOU to all who have called to express their support and words of encouragement. Also to those who have stopped her in public to personally express their thoughts we wish to express our warmest THANKS.
I had intended to end this article with the above note of thanks but after attending the Regular Council Meeting Tuesday night I have a few comments to make regarding the things that transpired at that meeting. First I believe this years budget discussions are the worst we have seen. Last year the budget was separated into specific departments to be discussed at any one meeting. Also last year there was more information furnished by the administration that listed out the unfinished projects and spelling out how the departments were planning on using the budgeted funds. It is very apparent this year the changes were handled by Mr. Riddler and Mayor York without input from the other council members. Two budget meetings were scheduled and the entire budget was to be discussed. The four members (Kneemiller, Weller, Reese, Hoepfner) who walked out on the November 29th meeting when budget changes were discussed are being contrary and their decisions are all made out of spite to the other five members without, it seems, consideration of the possible consequences to the residents. Kneemiller, who did not attend the budget discussion and was allowed to separate the changes approved at that meeting and thus allowing voting separately on each issue. If they were against the changes why did they not attend the meeting? I believe they are taking this City down the tubes but not willing to consider good changes that are for the benefit of the taxpayers and residents of the City. The stormwater funds for flooding in two particular wards was voted down by Larry Muench, who was to receive the benefit of $100,000.00 in his ward for flooding problems. Thus preventing the other ward residents from receiving $200,000.00 to rectify their flooding basements issue. Was this done to stay in lockstep with his other voting block members (Kneemiller, Weller, Reese, Hoepfner)? This years budget process and figures remind me too much of the very reason we voted for new council members in April 2004. Why do we have four department director positions vacant? To answer Weller’s question I have to remind everyone that effective April 2007 because of only 200+ votes for the Charter change the new Mayor will have the authority to fire existing directors and replace them with his/her own choice. Naturally the individuals who are filling those positions are questioning whether they will have the same job after April 2007. I raised the question then and I raise it again now, who in their right mind would accept a position now unless they are already aware who the next Mayor will be and are in step with him/her. If I were voting on the new budget proposal it would have to be a resounding no and suggest letting the old 2005 budget be extended 45 days to allow properly organized meetings to take place. Enough said now until another day. The aforesaid situation is only one of many that the City taxpaying residents find themselves once again at the end of the stream fighting the rough current to go upstream with a very, very, very short paddle.
If you do not know what Council Rule 43 says, ask your council representative.
