Town Council decides not to join Patriot Act critics

Council split over proposal to change hastily-voted act
of congress
by BERT WILLIAMS, News Editor
A vocal group showed up last week at the Windsor Town Hall,
hoping to convince the Town Council to support modifications to the
USA Patriot Act.
Members of the Windsor Bill of Rights Committee urged the
council to join more than 230 other cities and towns around the
country in support of an effort to amend the Patriot Act. The
federal legislation was passed quickly by the U.S. Congress in the
immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. A bill
is currently under consideration in congress that would amend
certain portions of the Patriot Act.
Last week the Town Council dealt with a number of items of
business before taking up the Patriot Act. About half of those in
attendance were there for a discussion about a proposed new winery
on Jensen Lane. The other half were there for the discussion of the
Patriot Act. When the agenda finally reached that point, Charles
Richard, chairman of the Bill of Rights Committee, presented the
case in favor of amending the act.
Richard stated his belief that portions of the Patriot Act run
contrary to the U.S. Constitution – particularly the Bill of
Rights. He cited the federal government’s internment of
Japanese-Americans during World War II and the anti-communist
efforts of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950’s as historical
examples of other challenges to the Bill of Rights. “The judgment
of history has not been kind to any of these abuses of civil
liberties,” said Richard.
On behalf of the committee, Richard asked the council to support
“a bipartisan effort in Congress, not to repeal the Patriot Act,
but to modify certain sections of the act which threaten the Bill
of Rights.” In making the case for the bipartisan nature of the
effort, Richard noted that the National Rifle Association has taken
a stand against the Patriot Act.
The current effort in the U.S. Congress, known as House
Resolution 3352, seeks to modify sections of the Patriot Act that
deal with roving wiretaps, searches and seizures and the obtaining
of private personal records with limited judicial oversight.
“When fear controls us as individuals and as a nation,” said
Richard, “when fear causes us to relinquish our constitutional
rights and freedom, we become less safe.”
A number of Windsor citizens followed Richard to the podium.
“I feel less safe with the Patriot Act,” said Matt Myers. “I
think it’s a threat to our democracy.”
World War II veteran Richard Gaines said that his memories of a
world threatened by totalitarianism during the war are still fresh.
“All action to protect our freedom begins at the local level,”
insisted Gaines.
Jason Obreo rose to argue in favor of the Patriot Act. “These
civil rights groups parading around are just giving more chances to
the criminals,” he said.
Shannan Johnson urged that Windsor join Kansas City, New York,
Los Angeles and many other cities that have passed resolutions
supporting modifications to the Patriot Act. “We’ve worked really
hard in Windsor to develop a community where there is a spirit of
tolerance,” said Johnson.
And Sidnee Cox observed, “The only way to counter fear is with a
climate of fairness and understanding.”
Seeing no more speakers coming forward, Mayor Debora Fudge
explained that once the public hearing on the matter was closed,
and the council took up the discussion, there would be no further
opportunitiy for the public to speak. She urged others who might
have something to say to come forward before the public hearing was
closed. Seeing no one approaching the podium, Fudged closed the
public session, and brought the discussion back to the
councilmembers.
Steve Scott was the first councilmember to address the issue,
and his first words angered some in the crowd.
“How many who support this resolution plan to vote for George
Bush?” asked Scott.
“That’s a political question,” said someone in the audience.
“Shame on you,” said another.
More than one person rose from their seats to protest, but Mayor
Fudge explained again that the public hearing had been closed, and
only the council now had the right to speak.
Scott continued. “We don’t know what would have occurred without
the government’s ability to investigate,” he said.
As Scott proceded, the audience grew increasingly restless. “Oh,
come on,” said one. “We should just walk out,” said another.
Scott said the possibility does exist that the Patriot Act, like
many other laws, could be abused. “But in my opinion,” he said,
“the Patriot Act is not being abused in America today. If it is
abused, I will join you in fighting it.”
Councilmember Sam Salmon was less optimistic than Scott about
the possibility that the government might abuse its powers. “Sonoma
County Police had the ability to violate my rights as a young
person,” Salmon said, but still, “I was able to believe in my
rights as an American and have that belief come true. The Patriot
Act infringes on my right to believe.”
Councilmember Lynn Morehouse said she did not believe that, with
her limited knowledge of constitutional law, she was able to make
an adequately informed decision about the Patriot Act. “I would
like to have had somebody from the Attorney General’s office here,”
she said. “I would like to have had somebody from the FBI. I think
the courts are going to have to deal with this.”
Councilmember Steve Allen said that he did not think the town
council was the appropriate government agency to take up the
Patriot Act. “Some cities routinely spend a lot of time on national
issues over which they have no jurisdiction,” said Allen. “We are
not the body that has control over these issues. … I would ask the
council that a motion not be made. We are a group that is known for
team work. We work well together. I see an issue like this as the
kind of thing that can split us apart.”
When Fudge spoke, she said she considered the Patriot Act a
local issue. “It’s a basic civil right issue,” she said. “It can
involve our local police if they’re designated to go into the
library.”
Fudge noted that the issue had also been made a local one by the
fact that the Windsor Bill of Rights Committee had brought it to
the council.
To Allen’s concern Fudge replied, “I don’t think this divides
us. We disagree strongly on lots of things, but I don’t think an
action tonight divides us.”
Following the council’s discussion, Salmon moved the resolution
in support of amending the Patriot Act. Fudge supported the motion,
but Scott and Morehouse voted against it, and Allen abstained.
Thus, the resolution died on a tied vote.
The outcome was not well received by some in the crowd. “Bunch
of jerks,” one was heard to say. “The only answer to that is to get
on a treadmill and walk like hell,” said another.
Later Richard reflected on the interactions that had taken place
at the council meeting.
“We approached the concerns about the Patriot Act as a
bipartisan effort,” said Richard. “Steve (Scott) came at it as a
strictly partisan effort.”
Richard likened Scott’s speech to that of a church pastor who
abuses his pulpit to promote a private agenda. “It’s an abuse of
power,” said Richard. “He was blatantly partisan and abused his
position. … It was a diatribe. It wasn’t just an exposition of
views.”
Richard said members of the committee are considering a response
to Scott’s presentation. “We want to go on record that that kind of
behavior is unacceptable from a local official,” Richard said. “We
will be writing a letter of protest to the town attorney. We’re
going to demand an apology from him.”
Richard said the committee is consulting attorneys to see if a
formal censure of Scott might be appropriate.
In response, Scott said it is clear that the Patriot Act has
become a partisan issue. “The Democratic presidential candidates
have used this issue to go after George Bush,” said Scott. “I find
it shameful that national Democratic leaders would use issues of
homeland defense as a political issue. If we’re going to be divided
on this, the terrorists are going to take advantage of that
position. I want to give the government the tools it needs to
investigate the people they think are terrorists.”
As for the question he posed to audience members at the council
meeting, Scott said, “I wanted to understand where they were coming
from politically. It was interesting that not one of them was
planning to vote for George Bush … This group has come forward
trying to sway the public on an issue that has been politicized on
a national level. I think for this group to publically disclose
where they are coming from politically is a fair question. As to
whether that information makes any difference on how people receive
their message, let the public decide.”