Ald. Cindy Kilkenny had a history of abandoning her aldermanic post
during her brief and tumultuous term. Here are the highlights.
Incident #1 - Personnel Meeting of October 20, 2003
The first recorded case of Cindy Kilkenny walking out of
an official meeting for an unknown purpose was a Personnel Committee
meeting held on October 20, 2003. The exact cause of Kilkenny's walk out
is unrecorded, but several people who did attend told me at the time that
Kilkenny had just lost a vote on increasing the salaries of (only) women
employees and was quite upset. The committee chair gave Kilkenny the
benefit of a doubt and called a recess (it was not otherwise requested) to
give Kilkenny time to compose herself and return. I believe she also
squeezed out a few minutes to talk to a reporter.
A mayor is constantly discussing, debating, negotiating,
etc. to a wide variety of people.
In the case of residents it may be explaining why
something they want to do is illegal (violates city code).
In the case of city employee labor unions, there are
tax dollars and employee morale at stake.
In the case of developers, there is city vitality and
tax revenue at stake, with lawsuits threatened by the developer in
some cases.
Do you really want the city's
chief negotiator to walk out in the middle of such meetings for no
stated reason? Can you picture former Mayor Kate Bloomberg acting like this?
Has current mayor Jeff Speaker ever walked out?
Incident #2 "Pottygate"
- Council Meeting of August 16, 2005
The Common Council meeting of August 16, 2005 had one highly unusual
event - an alderman walked out of the meeting without explanation.
There's a lot more to this than drinking too much coffee. It goes to
the heart of a person's character and commitment to public office.
Based
on Ald. Kilkenny's past reactions to anyone who challenges her actions, I
predict the following things will occur. In fact, at least three of them
already have (as of August 19 at 5:00 p.m.):
She will attempt to claim workplace harassment. Since no part
of this exchange includes sexual comments, gender specific comments, threats of physical
violence, or anything else covered under harassment law, this won't go
anywhere.
She will attempt to claim a violation of the city's ethics code.
That code addresses things like making money off sweetheart city contracts,
not publicizing true but unflattering facts about an elected official.
Some unwavering Kilkenny supporter will write a letter to the editor of a
local newspaper (or the more modern version - post
a web page) saying how this is all a sinister conspiracy or apply
some double standard for behavior.
She will threaten a libel suit for defamation. Unfortunately
for her, truth, no matter how unflattering, is an absolute defense.
As the story says, 2nd District Alderman and Mayoral candidate Cindy
Kilkenny left a Common Council meeting without explanation. The
best way to give the details is by posting a series of emails sent by Ald.
Berg and Ald. Kilkenny in chronological order. The left is the email, the right is
Ald. Berg's
analysis and opinion. In several places, emphasis was added by Ald. Berg
for purposes of this web page's commentary.
Ald. Berg's email
Ald. Berg's Commentary
From: Scott
Berg [mailto:scott@scottberg.com]
Sent:
Tuesday, August 16, 2005 10:59 PM
To: Lisa
Sink; Linda McAlpine; Eric Martin
Subject:
Tuesday Closed Session
This
is the email that started it all. Now, since the reporters
had left, the TV cameras were off and the roll call had been
recorded, how else would this have come to light?
Could this be a case
of Ald. Kilkenny believing that "It's all right - no one's looking"?
Members of the
Press -
The one
aspect of Tuesday night's closed session that I can disclose to
you is this: Ald. Kilkenny walked out of the closed session at
9:55pm. The meeting went back into open session and adjourned at
10:07pm. That makes 12 minutes of discussion that Ald. Kilkenny
missed.
The
times listed are based on the wall clock in the Council Chambers.
The building
security system also logged the events and those times were used in the newspaper story. A minute
here or there is hardly the point.
Note
there is no speculation of why Ald. Kilkenny left the room.
There is no claim of her "stomping out" because that wouldn't be
true. She could have left to use the restroom, go to
her car, or give an interview on eminent domain for the next
day's newspaper. You wouldn't know from this email.
In my 5 years
on the Brookfield City Council, I cannot recall a single Time
when an alderman walked out of a Council session early, for any
reason.
I believe
that it reflects very poorly on Ald. Kilkenny, who effectively
exploited the fact that the press had left, the TV cameras were
off and roll call had already been taken.
Scott A. Berg
Alderman, 5th
District
When
reporters started calling, I dug into this a bit more. In
fact, there were two other cases of an elected official leaving a
Council meeting early.
On
April 18, 2000,
Mayor Bloomberg opened the meeting at 7:45 p.m. and left the
meeting at 8:30 p.m. upon hearing that her daughter was in an
auto accident. Just elected Council President Mike Jakus
chaired the rest of the meeting.
On a more
recent
occasion Ald. Franz left the meeting for, oddly enough, the same
reason.
You can
hardly fault a parent for dropping everything to take care of a
family emergency. Is what Ald. Kilkenny did in the same
league?
p.s. I find
it fascinating the Ald. Kilkenny, who had so vigorously opposed the
confidential information ordinance I sponsored last fall and who vilified all
closed sessions, has in fact voted for both Council closed sessions and
one Board of Public Works closed session since the ordinance was
passed. I can only hope that the current mayoral campaign will point out
this and the many other brazenly hypocritical actions.
Ald. Kilkenny's response to his one is pretty interesting.
Read on!
Ald. Kilkenny's email
Ald. Berg's Commentary
From:
Cindy Kilkenny [mailto:aldermankilkenny@wi.rr.com] Sent:Wednesday,
August 17, 2005 12:39 PM To: 'Lisa Sink'; 'emartin@jcpgroup.com';
'lmcalpine@conleynet.com' Cc: 'scott@scottberg.com' Subject: Alderman
Berg's e-mail reporting my missing 12 minutes
Remember the time
of this email: 12:39 p.m.
Please accept this as the
official response to Alderman Berg’s concern. As I understand, he
sent each of you an e-mail detailing my early retreat from last
night’s closed session.
So,
the "official response". Note that it's sent to the press,
not the aldermen. Ald. Kilkenny made no effort to
apologize to her peers for her behavior until her activities could
no longer be covered up.
The very uneventful news is that I had to go to the bathroom.
So,
there you have it, a "call of nature".
It is common for
aldermen, staff, etc. to step out of a meeting briefly for
exactly this reason. The real question is whether they come
back to represent the residents who elected them or if they
decide they can't be bothered.
Compare this
to the mysterious illness that she later claims but couldn't remember
here. This illness allowed her to attend the meeting in the first
place, make numerous quotes to the press on eminent domain, stay for nearly the
whole meeting, then suddenly leave, taking her briefcase (into
which she loaded a considerable stack of notebooks and papers) with
her.
I find it difficult to
understand why Alderman Berg would single out my trip down the
hall when Alderman Mike Franz left at exactly the same time. In
fact, he seemed relieved (oh, please don’t imply the pun) that
someone else would leave the room. Alderman Franz and I chose
separate hallways, so I’m not sure if he went back to the
meeting. I didn’t.
Ah,
an attempt to divert attention from the truth by using some potty
humor.
The
fact is that Ald. Franz did return and stayed to the end of the
meeting. Had Ald. Kilkenny done the same, you wouldn't be
reading this!
The presentation had been made
by staff and I could tell the meeting was winding down. I felt it
would be more disruptive to enter the room again than simply to
head home. So that’s what I did.
Interesting how Ald. Kilkenny could tell the meeting was over
when Mayor Speaker, 13 other aldermen and several staff members
thought the remainder of the meeting was important enough to stay around.
The fact is that when Ald. Franz did return, he was not disruptive.
And where's that
mysterious illness that completely slips her mind until she
realizes a story will appear in tomorrow's paper?
Staff has repeatedly explained
that everything would be made public in due time, so I don’t feel
that I slighted the residents of the 2nd district in
any way by leaving a few minutes early.
True, staff members did say this. However, this is always
true about closed sessions meetings, yet everyone, including
until now Ald. Kilkenny, stays for the whole meeting. How could she
be certain that nothing new would be brought up at the last
minute?
I understand Alderman Berg also
made an interesting comment about my not liking the new ethics
code and then voting to go into closed session each time there
has been one. Logically, these are apple and orange issues.
Closed sessions are a necessary part of government. Having an
extraneous law to silence a member of that session was
unnecessary.
Is this really the
impression you got about Ald. Kilkenny's stance on December 7,
2004 when she opposed the change to the ethics rules prohibiting
disclosure of the contents of a closed session?
"They had our names on it with stickers, and
they took it back to make sure all of it came back," said Ald.
Cindy Kilkenny, who voted against the ordinance penalizing
those who spoke about closed-session events. "To me, all of
that information should be made public. If the city knows it
and the landowners know it, why can't the public know it?"
Did you have any doubt that Ald.
Kilkenny and her supporters thought that closed sessions were
always evil? Now Ald. Kilkenny states:
"Closed sessions are a necessary part of government."
This seems to admit that
government secrets are necessary, at least some of the time.
After all, if you don't protect the contents of a closed session
and someone leaks the information, wouldn't that undermine "a necessary part of
government"?
Could there be a double standard at work here? Or is
this a flip-flop?
Finally, I apologize to Alderman
Berg for upsetting him so by leaving last night’s meeting a few
minutes early. I very much appreciated his donation to my Mayoral
campaign a couple of weeks ago and do not in any way want to
diminish his opinion of me as that campaign moves forward.
Best regards,
Cindy
Ald. Berg did indeed make a donation of $25 to Ald. Kilkenny's
campaign on August 1, 2005.
Ald. Berg
also made a contribution of $25 to Mayor Speaker's campaign on
May 17, 2005, which was disclosed in Mayor Speaker's campaign finance report.
Democracy is
about choice and that requires at least two candidates. If
a third candidate should declare, Ald. Berg will probably send
him (or her) $25 and his best wishes as well.
Ald. Berg's email
Ald. Berg's Commentary
From: Scott
Berg [mailto:scott@scottberg.com]
Sent:
Wednesday, August 17, 2005 1:58 PM
To: Lisa
Sink; emartin@jcpgroup.com; lmcalpine@conleynet.com
Subject: Re:
Alderman Berg's e-mail reporting my missing 12 minutes
My rebuttal to
Ald. Kilkenny's email of 12:59 p.m. Note that it seemed to
have prompted an apology by Ald. Kilkenny at 5:05.
Members of the Press -
In the interest of efficiency,
I'll send this to all of you. Of course, you are welcome to
phone my office: xxx-xxx-xxxx
Since I have to work for a
living, unlike Ald. Kilkenny who can devote full time to a part time position like alderman, I
have to restrict the number of calls I take at work, so I blocked
out the phone number.
Residents are always welcome to call my
home or send an email. I try to return my calls within one
day.
Notice Ald. Kilkenny's
trivialization of walking out of an official public meeting, denying her
resident's her representation. It appears that mayoral candidate
Kilkenny has plenty to say when the press is in the room, but considers the
people's business to be tiresome when the press is gone.
This speaks for
itself.
Ald. Franz did indeed take a
brief break from the meeting, as is common, but returned before
the closed session ended. There was no way to know how much longer
the discussion would last, TV or no TV, since new questions were
constantly being asked.
This speaks for
itself.
Recall the entry on Ald.
Kilkenny's now deleted (covered up?) blog a few months ago where she
berated Mayor Speaker for attending a baseball game when a mayor's
convention in Chicago ended. Why is his staying a extra few hours to
network with fellow mayors so repugnant to her while walking out of a
public meeting is so trivial?
Ald. Kilkenny's now
defunct blog had an entry on June 11, 2005 that read [emphasis
added],
"It looks like
the Mayor could have a busy few days.
The business portion of the conference ends at noon on Monday,
but there's a White Sox game the Mayors will attend that
evening.
Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett is also attending.
Here's a Sun-Times article quoting Mayor
Barrett and describing the conference.
Among the items on the business agenda for the conference are
"Resolution No. 24,
STRONGLY SUPPORTING THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM," and
"Resolution No. 1,
NATIONAL ANTHEM PROJECT." I
know, it's supposed to be a great time to network with other
Mayors, but I'm not sure that particular conference is where I
would choose to put the taxpayer's money. The Council
approves the budget which includes travel, not the choice of
conference options."
Now, after reading that is there any
doubt that mayoral candidate Kilkenny thinks the mayor should be
in City Hall all the time, working every minute? Yet she
walks out of a meeting for no credible reason.
Perhaps this explains why Ald
Kilkenny deleted her blog. TWICE!
A check of the June finance
reports will show that I also donated $25 to Mayor Speaker's campaign.
If a third candidate should enter the race, I will probably donate
to him as well. Democracy only works when there is a choice and I
am proud to support having a choice.
See the previous
comment.
As for my closed meeting
comment, I think it would be instructive to call on some of Ald.
Kilkenny's supporters who so vehemently opposed the change in policy a few
months ago and ask them what they believe Ald. Kilkenny's stand on
closed meetings is. I claim they believe she opposes any secrecy in
government, even for short periods, and are unaware of her approval of
multiple closed sessions. If they admit that secrecy is desirable in
limited cases and for short periods, why would they oppose enforcement
of the confidentiality? Someone is revising history here.
Remember the woman walking
around with the sandwich board sign? Remember the newspaper editorials?
Remember the calls to aldermen lobbying against the change?
Did you have any doubt that Ald.
Kilkenny and her supporters thought that closed sessions were
always evil?
Scott A. Berg
Alderman, 5th District
Ald. Kilkenny's email
Ald. Berg's Commentary
From: Cindy Kilkenny [mailto:aldermankilkenny@wi.rr.com]
Sent:Wednesday, August 17, 2005 5:05 PM To: Chris Blackburn; Dan Sutton; Dick Brunner; Gary
Mahkorn; Jim Garvens; Jim Heinrich; 'Mark Nelson'; Mike Franz;
Rick Owen; Ron Balzer; Steve Ponto; Tom Schellinger Cc: 'Jeff Speaker'; Moschella@ci.brookfield.wi.us;
scott@scottberg.com Subject: Last night's meeting
This
note was sent to the mayor, all aldermen and some staff members
who attended the entire meeting.
Note this
time: 5:05 p.m.
Aldermen, this e-mail is for
your information and not for reply. I need you to know what’s
going on before it hits tomorrow’s paper. Below are three
e-mails, one from Scott Berg to the press, one from me as a
reply, and another from Scott as a rebuttal. Scott never sent me
any of these; the press was kind enough to let me in on the
complaint. I did e-mail Scott my reply.
Ever
mindful of open meetings law, Ald. Kilkenny cautions against
replies.
The "three
e-mails" referred to appear above, in chronological order.
The
real question is, why write this at all? Could it be
spin control from a mayoral candidate who realized how bad
walking out of a Council meeting is?
Notice the
dig about how she wasn't copied? I wonder how many tips to
the press Ald. Kilkenny has sent over the last few years without
copying anyone else?
Also notice
the change from "Aldermen, this email" and "Mr. Moschella's
presentation" to the informal "Scott never sent me.."
This
is Ald. Kilkenny's subtle way of showing contempt for a person.
Pretty professional, huh?
If
Ald. Kilkenny
treats fellow aldermen like this now, how will she build a
working relationship with them as mayor?
Imagine how Mayor Kilkenny
will treat residents she disagrees with.
You will notice
throughout my emails shown here that I am always polite and
respectful, including Ald. Kilkenny.
When I left last night I
realized Mr. Moschella’s presentation was over, but I knew I
needed to excuse myself. Afterward I realized I wasn’t really
feeling well enough to return. (You might remember I had asked
earlier if we were required to be there. I wasn’t at my best all
evening.) Rather than poke my head in and say I was heading out
and further disrupt the meeting, I just left.
Ald.
Kilkenny "realized the presentation was over", yet the mayor,
13 aldermen and city staff members stayed around. Did they
really lack the insight of when a discussion is done? Or
did they realize that a last minute question could raise a
significant point and a time consuming discussion?
Note the
statement:
"Afterward
I realized I wasn’t really feeling well enough to return"
made in this email on Wednesday at 5:05 p.m. Compare
it to the reason given in the email sent earlier (see above) at
12:39 p.m. where we see the explanation:
"The very uneventful news is that I had to go to the bathroom."
and
"I felt it would be
more disruptive to enter the room again than simply to head
home."
Isn't it odd
that the memory of an illness so great that it forced an early
departure completely slipped Ald. Kilkenny's mind the next day at
12:39, then magically appeared at 5:05?
Another point
not made elsewhere is that Ald. Kilkenny took not only her purse,
but her briefcase (briefcase in which she loaded a considerable
stack of notebooks and papers) with her when
she left.
If she was just
going to the bathroom, why not leave her briefcase (into which
she loaded a considerable stack of notebooks and papers) at her seat?
If the meeting was still going on, she would have saved herself
the trouble of hauling them around. If the meeting had
adjourned, she would not have disturbed anyone. This
notion that leaving was a last minute decision and was not
planned when she picked up her stuff and left just doesn't hold
up.
Spin
control, anyone?Like
being manipulated?
I apologize if I offended any of
you. I hope you can forgive me for needing to leave.
Cindy
So,
if a reporter had not called her and asked about this, would Ald.
Kilkenny still have felt bad enough about this to apologize?
You can judge the sincerity for yourself after reading the
whole story.
You have consistently and incorrectly stated that I took a
stack of notebooks with me when I left the room. In fact, I
only took my briefcase with me. If you persist in being a
jerk, at least have the decency to be an accurate jerk.
Cindy
The change was
made as requested throughout this page he same day as the
email.
Like the
professional tone of Ald. Kilkenny's note? Notice any
such name calling in any of Ald. Berg's emails? This
gets back to that whole personal contempt issue
mentioned before.
Just imagine what Mayor
Kilkenny will say about the resident's who dare to point out
their disagreement with her. Think I should hold my
breath for an apology?
Web Site Excerpt
Ald. Berg's Commentary
The following text is
a verbatim extract from part of a page on the web site
www.kinseypark.com from
August 19, 2005. The web site no longer exists, so this is the
only way the (fully attributed) text can be references.
Bold face was added for emphasis.
"BATHROOM BREAK SPARKS PLAINT ~ Brookfield alderman leaves
closed session 12 minutes early" by Lisa Sink, Aug. 17th
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Article
As is almost
always the case, this site quotes a newspaper article then
includes a long personal opinion. Nothing wrong with personal
opinions of course, that's what the 1st Amendment is all about.
More interesting is how the author dismisses that right for
others, as indicated in the following comments. Further, it
becomes clear that the writer has no information to add.
It's just commentary on what everyone else already has read.
This is really too
much! I think this topic could come under the heading of: More
information that we want to know. Maybe the famous Shakespeare
title would have been a better choice, Much Ado About Nothing.
So, an elected
official walking out of a meeting where litigation involving
millions of taxpayer dollars is under discussion, denying her
peers her opinion and her residents her representation is "Much
Ado About Nothing." I'd like to hear a definition of what
"something" is!
Once again, Alderman
Berg is making a fuss about something that I am sure strikes most
of us as pretty trivial: Alderman Kilkenny left the final 12
minutes of a council meeting in "closed session without
explanation". I have never attended a closed session, but I have
been to a few council meetings and aldermen do get up and leave
the room for various reasons during discussion. They are gone for
a while, and then return. I never noticed that they first raised
a hand with the grade school signal of "I need to use the
restroom" for permission. They just got up, wandered out, and
eventually returned.
It is true that
in the course of long meetings many people will leave the room
for short periods of time. However, in every case I can
remember, they came back.
In fact, Ald. Franz left the room
at the same time as Ald. Kilkenny and returned.
But notice that
Alderman Berg did not mention that Alderman Franz also got up
when Alderman Kilkenny did to leave the room at 9:55pm--2 hours
and 10 minutes after the council meeting's start time of 7:45PM
(there were subcommittee meetings prior to that too).
"Berg said that Franz did leave but returned
to the meeting before it ended."
They did at least
wait until City Attorney Moschella finished his presentation
before leaving the room.
This is true.
However, considerable discussion followed. Several times a
question arose that required considerable explanation. How
could anyone know there wouldn't be another such question after
Ald. Kilkenny walked out?
But Alderman Berg
once again draws an unfounded conclusion, "that Kilkenny
considers the people's business to be tiresome when the press is
gone" as her motivation for leaving the meeting. He should
just stick to the facts and not conjure up people's
motivations for using the restroom.
Now, how many
times does the Kinsey Park web page author toss in an opinion and not just
"stick to the facts"? Could there be a double standard
at work here?
The bigger question
here is not, why did 2 aldermen leave the council chambers at the
tail end of the meeting and only one returned for the last few
minutes? Leaving early is not a chronic problem.
Well, if an
elected official failing to represent his or her residents by not
being present is not a significant question, what is?
Attendance at council
meetings is not mandatory: recommended yes, mandatory, no.
This is highly
misleading. After all, isn't it just common sense
that to do a job you have to actually show up for it?
Here's an opinion: Perhaps common sense is not so common!
The City
Code repeatedly refers to the importance of attending meetings.
Granted, some level of absence is allowed, but the flat statement
"Attendance at council meetings is not
mandatory" is highly
misleading. What would you think of an employee who
never showed up for work, or was chronically late or who took
long lunch hours or who always left early? While
performing good work is much more than just punching a clock,
walking out of key meetings is, in Ald. Berg's opinion, certainly
suspicious. Could there be a double standard at work
here?
Brookfield City Code 2.04.040
(C):
Two-thirds of the aldermen of the council
shall constitute a quorum. A lesser number may compel the
attendance of absent members or may adjourn. The mayor
shall not be counted in determining whether a quorum is
present at a meeting.
Brookfield City Code 2.04.040
(C):
Three consecutive absences by a
member of any board or commission from regularly scheduled
meetings shall operate to vacate the members office. An
absence excused by the mayor for good cause shall not be
considered an absence hereunder.
Brookfield City Code 17.12.240
allows aldermen to attend council meetings
by phone, removing being out of town as an excuse for failing to
attend.
Brookfield City Code 17.12.020:
The board shall keep minutes of its
proceedings showing the vote of each member upon each question
or, if absent or failing to vote, indicating such fact,
and shall keep records of its examinations and other official
actions, all of which shall be immediately filed in the office
of the board and shall be a public record.
Getting all worked up
over an isolated incident seems petty.
This is an
interesting insight. The very next paragraph refers to an
isolated incident, Mayor Speaker's campaign contribution error,
as being a "real issue". Could there be a double
standard at work here?
Most of us would want
our aldermen to be more concerned with real issues like what is
Brookfield going to do about the recent Supreme Court decision on
eminent domain or Mayor Speaker's illegal campaign contributions,
which was a pretty important issue recently in Menomonee Falls.
Incident #3 - Water and
Sewer Board Meeting of April 11, 2006
This meeting was held
after Ald. Kilkenny had lost her bid for mayor. It was to be her last
official appearance at this committee. She did
not appear.
By comparison, when 39 year Aldermanic incumbent Norm Draeger had been defeated for
re-election in April 2000, he did appear at his final Water Board meeting.
Mayor Bloomberg, while technically a board member, always sent her aldermanic
alternate, but at Ald. Draeger's final meeting she also appeared. Now there were elected officials who understood the job was
not about them.
Incident #4 - Library Board Meeting of April 12, 2006
This meeting was held
after Ald. Kilkenny had lost her bid for mayor. It was to be her last
official meeting in which she could serve the city's residents. She did
not appear. As a courtesy, the official minutes failed to note her absence
as they normally would have.
The most significant part of this is that Mrs. Kilkenny did manage to attend
the next council meeting of April 18 where Mayor Speaker was sworn in for his
second term. No time to attend meeting while in office. Plenty of
time to attend when out of office.