Posted 2 months, 14 days ago in 
Loading ...
While The Daily Sentinel and reporter Mike Wiggins deserve plaudits for chronicling the ongoing discussion regarding invocations at City Council meetings (“Keeping the Faith; Council planning to continue invocations”, July 17; Letters to the Editor, July 24), the Sentinel’s audacious “so sue us” editorial position (“Council invokes a sensible solution”, July 20) merits less respect and more scrutiny.
By essentially daring the atheists (or any other aggrieved plaintiff with standing) to sue the city and “spend their money fighting the issue in court,” the Sentinel’s editors (albeit probably reflecting prevailing community sentiment) have unfortunately overlooked two legal implications of that posture – one proximate, one remote.
First, if the plaintiffs were to prevail on any Establishment Clause claim, then the city treasury would likely end up paying all of the atheists’ legal bills – thereby in effect subsidizing the very litigation the Sentinel would so cavalierly invite.
Second, if the City Council were to assert a position contrary to law and/or the competent legal advice of the city attorney, there is some possibility that each councilperson so voting could be held personally liable for willfully ignoring their oath of office and thereby wantonly violating the civil rights of the plaintiffs.
Thus, the Sentinel’s editorial position would command more credibility if it publicly offered to indemnify both the city of Grand Junction and every individual City Council member for all legal expenses incurred by provoking and then losing a needless lawsuit.
BILL HUGENBERG
Grand Junction
23 Responses to “City shouldn’t open itself up to lawsuit”
Posted July 24th, 2008 at 4:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I am aghast. What began as a friendly gesture, and a request by the atheists appears to have evolved into a demand with threats of litigation. Who’d a thunk? Can anybody hear that Ambulance siren?
Posted July 24th, 2008 at 4:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
And once again, the ambulance chaser weighs in with the thinly veiled threats of a lawsuit should the city not bow to his desires.
I’m still willing to donate to any legal defense fund the city sets up to alleviate the burden on the taxpayers of any such lawsuit.
In fact, let’s make it a community effort.
All monies for either side for legal expenses concerning said, as yet unfiled but (non)threatened legal action must come from within the county.
No national organizations or corporations, just donations from Mesa County Citizens.
That way it does away with big money from out of the area controlling what actually goes on where it’s none of their damned business.
Posted July 24th, 2008 at 4:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It’s not that bad. The threats are only coming from the Sentinel.
Posted July 24th, 2008 at 4:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hugenberg runs the Sentinel?
Does the Sentinel staff know about this yet?
Posted July 24th, 2008 at 4:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP stated: “I am aghast. What began as a friendly gesture, and a request by the atheists appears to have evolved into a demand with threats of litigation. Who’d a thunk?”
I am very much afraid that AP misunderstood Mr. Hugenberg’s letter. There was absolutely no ‘threat’, merely what could happen, and the apparently cavalier position of the Daily Sentinel of “So, sue me!” That is easy to say when it is not their money, but the public’s. Now, that may appear “macho” to some, and may play well to the mob, but responsible? I don’t believe so. It is like the supposed ‘leader’ who yells CHARGE! then runs to the rear.
Posted July 24th, 2008 at 4:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP: “I am aghast. What began as a friendly gesture, and a request by the atheists appears to have evolved into a demand with threats of litigation. Who’d a thunk? Can anybody hear that Ambulance siren?”
AP you must have overlooked the fact that it was the Sentinel editorial which proclaimed: “so sue us” The threats of litigation appear to be entirely manufactured by those who as Mr. Hugenberg pointed out are “daring” those calling for compliance with the law.
Posted July 24th, 2008 at 4:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
No, the “they can sue us” was in the July 20 editorial. That’s the only threat I’m aware of.
Posted July 24th, 2008 at 5:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rl,
Perhaps the gentleman would care to explain exactly what group he was calling a mob? It is offensive to me as a person who would like to keep the invocation as a part of our City Council agenda to be described as part of a mob. Although I recognize that Mr. Laitres is not a party to our civility agreement, and is under no constraints of that agreement, I would simply ask that the gentleman consider trying not to demonize, by the use of a label that carries nothing but negative implications, those he disagrees with. Thank you in advance.
Posted July 24th, 2008 at 6:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP states: “Perhaps the gentleman would care to explain exactly what group he was calling a mob? It is offensive to me as a person who would like to keep the invocation as a part of our City Council agenda to be described as part of a mob. Although I recognize that Mr. Laitres is not a party to our civility agreement, and is under no constraints of that agreement, I would simply ask that the gentleman consider trying not to demonize, by the use of a label that carries nothing but negative implications, those he disagrees with.”
Perhaps the gentleman forgets that words, depending upon context, can have differing meanings. That is at times called a ‘figurative’ meaning. As to the word ‘mob’ it also consists of any ‘emotional mass’. If the ‘mob’ offends the gentleman, then perhaps he takes the word too personally, and only in its negative connotations. That is his choice to do. Some of us have a much broader interpretation.
As to civility, civilization does not mean sterilization, either in content or in form. That is never a problem when the challenge is recognized to be to an idea, no matter how sharp the disagreement or discussion.
Posted July 24th, 2008 at 6:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL,
Sir, I respectfully disagree. And I believe your use of the word was to demean. I would prefer that you make your point without resorting to such tactics. You of course, as always, are free to do as you please. I do think we are all trying very hard and I think you could make your point without using the word mob, don’t you?
Posted July 24th, 2008 at 6:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
A-P, it appears that both you and WLJ have the honor of breaking the pledge first. Who woulda’ thunk? The mob refers to people in general who blindly take a position without listening and discerning who said what and who did what. Offensive to you? Was that an insult to you? Was it directed at you? How do you know who Mr.Laitres had in mind? As for WLJ, Mr. Hugenberg is a friend and is anything but the proverbial ambulance chaser. As far as I know he has not charged a soul for his advice. And his advice is very thoroughly researched. WLJ is characterizing people because he disagrees with them. In WLJ’s book apparently ones ideas makes them despicable if he disagrees with them. As for Mr. Laitres not “taking the pledge” having something to do with his veracity and credibility, he has been in the forefront of desiring civility. Constraints implies some sort of boundaries. Mr.Laitres, as is true of many more, attempts to stay with in the boundaries of civility without the need for pledges and has only responded to incivility rather than just let it continue.
Posted July 24th, 2008 at 6:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yes John, I too find it interesting that AP objected to the word “mob” not applied to anyone in particular but did not object to the word “ambulance chaser” applied to a specific individual. What’s up with that AP?
Posted July 24th, 2008 at 6:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I think you both will recall that I brought up this very point and at that time, Johnb stated that he didn’t post on the forums much, and therefore felt no need to sign on. I’m sorry. I am not the policeman of this site. And I realize that both of you want to make a point of every breakdown that occurrs. I told Mr. Laitres that his use of the word mob offended me, mainly becuase I felt he could have made his point without it. And that is where the good faith effort comes in. If you have a problem with what Willis said, then take that to Willis. Perhaps you will get a better result than I did with Mr. Laitres.
And here is another point to think about while you are at it. A lot of the complaints about civility prior to the agreement came from you, Johnb, from Class of 52 and Mr. Laitres. So far only one of you have signed on to the agreement followed immediately by a request for me to police your greivance. I respectfully submit that this agreement can work, but it does require a good faith effort. So here is what I suggest. I withdraw my complaint from Mr. Laitres, and you withdraw yours from Willis. Either that or you can present your case to the other posters and let them decide. I realize you want to test the agreement, I just want it to work. So, how about it?
Posted July 24th, 2008 at 7:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP states: “Sir, I respectfully disagree. And I believe your use of the word was to demean.”
Unfortunately, I cannot help what AP ‘believes’ was meant by the term “mob”, nor am I responsible for him classifying himself as a member of such a group. As to divining anothers’ motivation, I am not that far along in level of cognizance.
If one looks for, and is determined to find ‘offense’ in what others say, one will undoubtedly find it.
Posted July 24th, 2008 at 7:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL,
I see you did not notice that I had already withdrawn my complaint. But your answer was noted. I realize that it is more difficult to make the effort to choose other wording. But I think it is an effort well worth making. And I hope you will consider it.
Posted July 24th, 2008 at 7:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP states: “I see you did not notice that I had already withdrawn my complaint. But your answer was noted. I realize that it is more difficult to make the effort to choose other wording. But I think it is an effort well worth making. And I hope you will consider it.”
The difficulty is that we all have differing backgrounds and, and in differing fields. What means something to one person (and they might find it offensive) others may find it part of the normal discourse when dealing with the subject at hand. Even I, after reading a response, may go back to see how my post COULD have been misinterpreted and, if required, clarification will follow.
Posted July 24th, 2008 at 7:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL,
Thank you. I will try to be more judicious in the future and not quite so touchy. And I do think that is part of the problem. We are discussing an emotional issue, at least on my side. Thank you again. Your reply was very considerate.
Posted July 24th, 2008 at 8:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I think we must be aware that applying a term in a non specific way to a general group (e.g. “those crooked politicians”) has a very different flavor than applying an epithet to a specific person who is not a national figure, especially one who is local and a personal friend of several of the contributors here. Even the libel laws recognize the difference.
Posted July 24th, 2008 at 9:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
” John B.
Posted July 24th, 2008 at 6:26 pm PM This User Report this comment
———–
A-P, it appears that both you and WLJ have the honor of breaking the pledge first. Who woulda’ thunk?
———–
The mob refers to people in general who blindly take a position without listening and discerning who said what and who did what. Offensive to you? Was that an insult to you? Was it directed at you? How do you know who Mr.Laitres had in mind?
————-
As for WLJ, Mr. Hugenberg is a friend and is anything but the proverbial ambulance chaser.
————-
As far as I know he has not charged a soul for his advice. And his advice is very thoroughly researched. WLJ is characterizing people because he disagrees with them. In WLJ’s book apparently ones ideas makes them despicable if he disagrees with them. ”
No JohnB, neither of us was the first to ‘break the pledge’ that you never took.
Nor did either of us attack, belittle, demean, or abuse any other poster on this site.
However, it was nice to note that you were the first to file a complaint over a non issue.
I offered to play nicely with the other children, and I intend to do so.
As for yourself?
The other posters are waiting patiently to see if you are going to act in a civil manner.
Posted July 24th, 2008 at 10:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
My apologies to the forum users.
It appears that indeed, JohnB did sign on to the agreement to be civil.
Post #350.
” John B.
Posted July 24th, 2008 at 5:01 pm PM This User Report this comment
The success you seek will be obvious soon enough–civil discourse. We don’t need some kind of group pledge for that. That should go without saying. We know where it went off track previously and we know why it persisted. I’m definitely “in” in terms of desiring civil discourse but we’ll have to wait and see just how touchy people are. Its easy for one’s ideas to be offensive to somebody but does that qualify as insults, for instance? I’ve watched many threads and frankly people were qiick to read things into language that was pretty straightforward and not meant at all to be a zinger. Nevertheless, let’s get on with it. ”
While he seems to be reluctant in his agreeing to the concept, he did agree.
And his last couple of sentences were quite remarkable under the current situation.
” Its easy for one’s ideas to be offensive to somebody but does that qualify as insults, for instance? I’ve watched many threads and frankly people were qiick to read things into language that was pretty straightforward and not meant at all to be a zinger. Nevertheless, let’s get on with it. ”
In essence, when he signed on, he indicated that he would be looking for any excuse to fly off the handle.
Obviously, the gentleman’s desire for a civil forum in which to engage others was patently false from the beginning.
Posted July 24th, 2008 at 10:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class of 52,
What shall we do then? Submit a list of our friends and acquaintances? What I think we should do is allow the person who was offended to make the objection. I made the objection to Mr. Laitres because in my opinion the word mob in his statement referred to those who objected to the invocation being altered or removed. Since I was one of those, I felt that qualified me to make the objection. If you were an attorney, then I could see how you could be offended. Mr. Hugenberg is an attorney and is quite capable of speaking for himself. You have every right to defend him, but you do not have the right to be offended in his place. And I think that is the difference.
Also, what you might consider, is that individuals who write a letter to the editor rarely if ever show up on this site to defend their statements. So they more or less have a free shot. If they posted in defense of their statement, or they posted an objection, and were willing to sign on or at least adhere to the same rules that we have agreed to, then I think they should be treated the same. It is arguable that Mr. Hugenberg placed himself in the place of being a public figure by posting several letters on this issue, using his own name as is required, while many of us on this site have made a personal choice to use handles because we did not want to put our real names in a public forum, or become a public figure. I think we all except that a signed statement should be given more weight than an anonymous post, and that is the advantage enjoyed by Mr. Hugenberg. Ideally, we would all use the same courtesy, regardless of who we were talking to, but I think it is unrealistic, especially in an election year, to apply that same standard to local candidates and individuals who have placed themselves and their name publicly in support of an issue that is widely perceived to be political. I do not presume to speak for others, but my perception of the purpose of our “code of conduct” was to preserve civility among those who have signed on and accepted the code of conduct. My understanding is that letters to the editor have a separate code and are reviewed and selected by staff at the Daily Sentinel, and in that way are a separate entity. I realize that we are going to have to make adjustments as we go, and I am doing my best to find a common ground that will allow spirited discussion without personal offense, and I hope you will join me in finding solutions to problems as they arise, as I am sure that a number of them will. I am just not anxious to do harm to our agreement in the name of things that haven’t happened. I hope eventually you will join with us, not only by accepting and practicing the “code of conduct”, which you already have, but by putting your name along side ours and becoming a full member. We really could use your input in solving some of these issues.
Posted July 25th, 2008 at 6:44 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
Getting back to the letter, you said you supported the continuation of the invocation. I’d like to ask you if you think it is worth the added costs that will be incurred? The Council will have to establish guidelines for the invocations and monitor them to ensure they comply. This will be a permanent cost. In addition, the city will remain at risk for litigation if the invocations do not comply with the established guidelines, or if they fail to monitor what is being said. They are already NOT having invocations at half their meetings (only on Mondays). Do you feel that it is worth the cost and risk?
By contrast, changing it to a moment of silence incurs no costs, no ongoing monitoring, no guidelines and no risk of litigation. Plus, the first item on the agenda of each meeting is an opportunity for public comments. Any citizen can take up to three minutes at the microphone to say whatever he wants. If someone feels so moved, he or she can step up and pray at that time. This incurs no liability for the city either.
It just seems to me that the moment of silence is the best solution. What do you think?
Posted July 25th, 2008 at 8:27 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP: “I hope eventually you will join with us, not only by accepting and practicing the “code of conduct”, which you already have, but by putting your name along side ours and becoming a full member. We really could use your input in solving some of these issues.”
Agreeing to some sort of unspecified code carries with it the implication that I wish to change my on line behavior from what it was previously. I do not. I have always tried to maintain a level of civil discourse without resorting to personal attacks (except in a handful of instances when highly provoked). I do not use demeaning names and I do not use insulting terms for another person. I will continue this policy.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.