Alderperson Alex Schultz (District 9) has publicly commented on the social media post he made in which he had expressed concerns about fellow alderpersons voicing “conservative family values”. In his public comments he confirmed that he believed the things he had posted but that his original post was “in hindsight, misplaced and certainly could have been worded with a little more sensitivity to new and existing Council members.”
Here is Alderperson Schultz’s full statement:
A couple observations before commenting on my original post which was, in hindsight, misplaced and certainly could have been worded with a little more sensitivity to new and existing Council members. I genuinely believe that every member of Council comes to the job, a low-paying one with high expectations from constituents, with the best of intent and the highest ideals of public service in mind. Council works best when party politics are set aside and we have deliberations with voices from widely varying perspectives. We are, after all, non-partisan yet the job of trying to be that, in these incredibly challenging partisan times, weighs on every member of Council no matter where you fall on the political spectrum. The aspersions cast by my original post were more of a reaction to the shift on Council than any real affront to the community, despite the perceived slight it felt as a whole to some of the votes taken on the AAPI and CEDAW resolutions.”
To that, Appleton resident Blong Yang replied:
Alexander Schultz I call bs on your comment. You meant every word of it. You know exactly what you are doing and saying. Your original comment is dead on, on how you see the new common council members and our community. At least [have] the courage to stand by your “values” in the public eye instead of trying to step behind closed doors. You know damn well the majority of appletonians wouldn’t approve of your “values” if they knew what you are doing or saying. Shame on you!
Alderperson Schultz posted a follow up comment in response to Mr. Yang:
Blong Yang We can’t get anywhere if we don’t respect each other on Council and I’m trying to say, respectfully, that my comments on a public thread were not well placed nor respectful, even if I meant them. See the distinction? As a lefty atheist I certainly do have vastly different values then many Appletonians and of my constituents. That doesn’t change the position I am in nor the need to work with my fellow Council members. I hold universal human rights and dignity up as the gold standard for decision making. Fault me for that or for being a non-believer, but do not assume that I think poorly of our Community, I have seen the immense strength and courage of so many residents in the past couple of years who have come to speak on issues of racism, disenfranchisement and inequality and make this community what it is.
Alderperson Schultz appears to have opted to not engage further in discussion even though one of his constituents–at his prompting–asked for clarification on a number of items (screenshots included) and I also asked some follow-up questions.
Here were my questions:
Thank you, Alderperson Schultz, for responding. I was hoping you could clarify what you had in mind when you used the term “conservative family values”. That’s a fairly broad term that means different things to different people and encompasses a range of values, so it would be helpful to know what you had it mind with it.
You also mentioned future progressive measures being brought forward and I was wondering if you could speak more fully about that and give residents of the city an idea of what they can expect to see over the next couple years.
You said, “Council works best when party politics are set aside and we have deliberations with voices from widely varying perspectives. We are, after all, non-partisan yet the job of trying to be that, in these incredibly challenging partisan times, weighs on every member of Council no matter where you fall on the political spectrum.” My perspective is that in the case of the AAPI resolution, deliberations were artificially cut short and varying perspectives were met with accusations of racism. Open discussion didn’t really happen in this situation. Alderperson Thao even acknowledged that there were probably some great ideas and changes that could be made but she was unwilling to let others touch the AAPI experience. It kind of seems like this situation devolved into the opposite of what you describe as the ideal which is setting party politics aside and having deliberations that include voices from a wide variety of perspectives. What are your thoughts on that?
Additionally, you voiced the idea of needing to hold “in check” either people with or the backlash from (it wasn’t clear to me exactly which you meant) conservative family values. How does that play in with the ideal of open discussion with a variety of perspectives?
I was also wondering if there were any actions underway to substantively address some of the concerns raised by the Asian Americans who spoke at the committee and Council meetings. Obviously, some of their personal stories of harassment dated to the 80s, but there were also a goodly number that were recent. The story of the two 20 year old women who were so terrified of harassment they won’t leave their house without other people with them particularly stood out to and concerned me. It’s also concerning to me that people are still not willing to report hate crimes even though our police department is very forward thinking and tries hard to be accessible. The resolution doesn’t really do anything to combat people perpetrating crimes and harassment. I was wondering if there’s any sort of concerted effort being taken to gather information about crimes and harassment against the AAPI individuals in Appleton? And is the city or the police department working with members of the local AAPI community to try to remove barriers and help them be more comfortable reporting crimes when they happen?
I did also want to draw your attention to the fact that one of your constituents posted a comment with some questions under Blong Yang’s post. Since it was under his comment and you weren’t tagged in it, it wouldn’t have come up in your notifications and I’m not sure you saw it.
Thank you for your time and willingness to dialogue.
Unfortunately, Alderperson Schultz did not respond either to me or his constituent whose post I have included below.
For what it’s worth, I have a friend who, like Alderperson Schultz’s description of himself, is a lefty, atheist, veteran, and although our perspectives differ on many different things our perspectives are also very close on many different things, and I’ve found that when people actually start discussing things, they often find they share more in common than they expect. I would think that there are many values Alderperson Schultz adheres to in his personal life that conservative religious people also adhere to. That is one of the reasons why I would like to clarify what exactly he meant with the phrase “conservative family values”.
And, of course, I think it is of great public interest to know, when a government leader mentions bringing forward progressive measures over the next couple years, what he has in mind with those. If it were a conservative making a similar statement, there would obviously, be a difference between them taking measures to lower taxes (which would probably be widely accepted) vs wanting to turn Appleton into a Second Amendment sanctuary city (which I imagine would get some pushback). Likewise, there are a range of potential progressive measures that could be brought forward, and it would only benefit the public for those plans and aspirations to be made public.
Political orientations aside, I think almost everybody would agree with Alderperson Schultz that “Council works best when party politics are set aside and we have deliberations with voices from widely varying perspectives,” and yet, as I explained to him, I did not see that happen in the situation of the AAPI resolution. Not only did it not happen, the variety of perspectives that is generally desirable was deliberately shut down. Obviously, members of the public giving public comment have broad First Amendment protections for the content of what they say, but that does not change the reality that there were some utterly and offensively false implications and accusations levelled at the members of the Council who supported the referback and at Appleton in general. The vast majority of city residents are not racist. The Common Council members who supported the referback are not racists, and the action of referring the item back was not racist, did not spring from racist motives, and did not have a racist basis. As a way to set aside party politics and have deliberations from widely varying perspectives, it would have been nice to see those accusations of racism more clearly spoken against by the sponsors of the resolution. It would have been an easy thing to say something along the lines of, “I support this resolution as originally written and will vote against any changes, but I do want to make it clear that my colleagues are not racists.” I think a few alderpersons making a simple but unambiguous statement like that would have gone a long way toward promoting the spirit of respect and collegiality that is necessary to maintaining open discussion and a healthy atmosphere in local government.
I think it would also have been of benefit to the public to provide some greater education about the Council’s policies and procedures and how local government works. Quite often when a member of the public attends a committee or Council meeting and something important happens, the Chair of the meeting will explain to them what happened, why it happened, and what they can expect going forward. That did not happen in this situation, and open discussion really suffered as a result.
My hope is that the next two years are not going to be regularly punctuated with similar situations, and that they will turn out to be much less tough than Alderperson Schultz initially predicted.
Be the first to reply