The first Common Council meeting quickly approaches and, as promised, the first of the elijudge.org blogs is born. The campaign has been a long one, filled with passion on both sides. As I did at our campaign gathering on April 3rd, I just wanted to thank Lauren for working with me to raise the debate on the things the 8th district cares about most. Continuing on that note, I'm also excited to get to work in the chair of Austin King. Surely, following in the footsteps of a man who put countless hours into the functions of Madison will be a difficult task.
With that said, we look to the new crew on City Council. There are nine of us, a huge number if you are any Madison history buff. During the numerous "alder classes," I expect I'll get to know all of them closely.
So, starting the tradition of transparent decision-making, I wanted to explain a conclusion I've been coming to for some time now:
One of the first thing a municipal officer does is get sworn into office. Look closely at the hyperlink and you can see that, here in Madison, we have the added option of attaching a supplemental "Statement to the Oath" which is directly tied to protesting the ban on civil unions and marriage.
To set the stage for the rest of this post, a little background is necessary. During the 2006 campaign, I had the privilege and honor of serving as the chair of Students for a Fair Wisconsin on the UW-Madison campus. The SFW campaign worked tirelessly to defeat the ban, working hand in hand with the College Democrats, hundreds of other organizations and thousands of different students. Although the rest of the state came up a little short on voting "No," the Madison campus voted in record-breaking midterm election numbers against the ban.
With all that said, I will not be taking the supplemental statement to the oath.
I have told this to a couple students and future-fellow alders and many are relatively surprised. Given my past record and the fact that I publicly identify as "gay", I am usually considered a sure-fire "statement-er". I can assure you, my decision has nothing to do with a change in heart over the ban and its effects. I will continue to fight the ban, prejudice, or hate against any community until the day I die. I simply do not feel the need to declare that truth in the same breath by which I am put into public office.
On a personal note, I also have reservations about tagging things to an oath of office. I fear that, in 20 years, as I watch my children tear down this hateful, worthless excuse for a constitutional addition, some other city or town may decide to follow our precedent and, in the event that we pass an amendment that allows same-sex marriage, establishes a statement against gay marriage. Admittedly, my long-sighted view of the matter is broadly applied, but I fear for the child sitting in a conservative town or village, questioning his or her own sexuality only to find that the individuals who administer his or her town have "stated" that he doesn't deserve equal rights.
With that said, there are some advantages to our city having the statement. Dan Ross, a former appointee to the Equal Opportunities Commission and fellow activist with Fair Wisconsin, left his position on the EOC in light of the ban's passage. His position is more than understandable and, in my eyes, commendable. I believe that, if having the statement can act as a deterrent to loosing such qualified and dedicated public servants as Dan, it serves a good purpose.
It’s a mixed bag. I won’t be taking the statement, but I completely understand why the City and those utilizing the addition would.
Changing gears a bit, the agenda of this week's CC meeting can be found online. Shifting through the 70 page PDF can be a pain, but I'd like to point out one item of impact for the 8th district.
Item 116 aims to "establish regulations for the sale of secondhand textbooks." Alder King, as he explained it to me, got this ordinance started in light of the increase in textbook theft and the frequency by which those stolen items were being sold for quick cash. The change that 116 would create is an additional step in the sellback process. The bookstore would need to record the books and manage the transaction in the same manner as a pawnshop. This would allow for greater tracking and grater aid in theft investigations.
The reason I am inclined to vote in favor of the ordinance is because it is in the students’ interests to do so. A student who has his/her books stolen can sometimes not afford to replace them. Even though the university tends to keep many textbooks on reserve, the student's grades will suffer. If the perception of this ordinance alone can help to curtail the growing trend of textbook theft than I feel it is my responsibility to vote for item 116.
I am running short on time for this post. Please comment on anything in this post and I will do my best to reply, should the post be soliciting one.
Eli
