By the associated press

Eau Claire Leader-Telegram. November 7, 2021.

Editorial: Useless secrecy undermines trust

We’re not going to say much about Kyle Rittenhouse’s ongoing trial. There is enough circus surrounding it, and it’s up to the jurors to decide anyway. But there is one detail revealed in the lawsuit that jumped out at us due to its national implications, one that we don’t think we can remain silent on.

It surprised many that the FBI had surveillance video of the protests in Kenosha taken from a plane it had overflyed the area. Prosecutors said video from the plane would show how the events unfolded.

The presence of aerial surveillance is not, in itself, of particular concern. It is not uncommon either. An August 2020 report from the Air Force Inspector General included information about a similar use of surveillance during protests in locations ranging from Washington, DC to California.

There were FBI planes over Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014 and Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017. When the Associated Press reviewed the practice in 2015, it found that the FBI had at least 50 surveillance planes. , and that the Drug Enforcement Administration has at least 92.

The reason we don’t see the airplane itself as a concern is the same as why there isn’t much to be concerned about seeing a Google Maps car driving around. When you are in public, such as at a demonstration, there is no presumption of the right to privacy. As long as the surveillance is limited to actions in such public places, we are not too worried.

There are also legal limits in place for how far enforcement can go. In 2018, the United States Supreme Court ruled on the use of surveillance. A more recent case in Baltimore also saw the U.S. 4th Court of Appeals backtrack. The police had fitted planes there with wide-angle lenses that effectively covered the entire city for 12 hours a day. The appeals court ruled that this type of oversight was too broad and violated residents’ constitutional rights.

What caught our attention was a distinct detail in the history of the yarn. That same 2015 investigation “traced the planes to at least 13 bogus companies designed to hide the identity of the plane and the pilots.” It is much more disturbing.

Everyone knows that law enforcement uses planes in their operations. A few weeks ago, the most-viewed plane on flightradar24.com, a site that tracks the location of planes around the world, was a Florida Sheriff’s helicopter circling the nature reserve where Brian Laundrie’s search was taking place. The use of aircraft by law enforcement is both widely known and widely accepted.

It’s easy to see why such aerial surveillance is attractive to law enforcement. It is an incredibly useful tool. The view from an airplane or helicopter is not obstructed by buildings in the same way as that of an officer at ground level. High quality cameras can display surprisingly sharp details. Infrared cameras can track fleeing suspects using their own body heat.

So why hide the fact that the FBI and other federal agencies own and use such tools? Why go so far as to create bogus companies to hide something that people already know?

Such secrecy for an act that can be done openly has inherently sinister connotations. It can only serve to call into question the intention of the police. It can only erode trust.

This is not an offshore plane performing drug interdiction operations against armed smugglers or agents in need of an element of surprise. These instances are what should be more the role of a shepherd than that of a predator, intervening when needed rather than hiding until they see an opportunity to pounce.

As we have said before, it is necessary that those who enforce the laws not only follow those laws, but be seen to do so. There are indeed cases where investigations must hide their hand behind them, lest those under investigation have the opportunity to cover up illegal activities. Keeping an eye out for protests is not one of them.

The combination of the words “secret” and “police” has a long and charged history, and this practice comes dangerously close to the line. It’s not necessary. It’s not good, neither for the FBI nor for the Americans they serve. The FBI should end its use of bogus companies to hide surveillance planes.

___

Wisconsin State Journal. November 8, 2021.

Editorial: Don’t let loudmouths scare school board candidates

Madison needs and deserves a vigorous debate next spring on the future of its public schools.

The same is true for other communities in Wisconsin.

But that won’t happen if few people – or none at all – show up for these important leadership positions. Insults and intimidation from heinous critiques of health protocols, “critical race theory” and police in schools scare away good candidates.

Witness the loudmouths in communities such as Burlington and Kenosha who have closed school board meetings due to mask and vaccine warrants during the deadly pandemic. Or consider the screaming protesters who pressured Madison to pull her cops out of high school despite violence and guns.

A civil debate on our K-12 schools is necessary, not a shouting match that undermines our democracy by cooling community contribution and participation.

For the first time in a decade, only one candidate ran for a vacant seat on the Madison School Board last spring. At the same time, the only candidate for re-election ran unopposed. This meant that the public was deprived of a healthy debate and choice as they sought to guide the education of their children.

The pandemic may have dissuaded some from running for office. But the vacant Madison school board seat was created when the board chair retired after being disgustingly mocked outside her private home. Can you blame her? A member of the Beaver Dam school board also resigned this fall, citing safety concerns for his family.

The Wisconsin Association of School Boards does not track the number of open seats or vacancies across the state. But the fear that fewer candidates might come forward is “a very reasonable and rational concern,” WASB spokeswoman Sheri Krause said on Friday.

It is also possible that the controversy over the COVID-19 rules and racial discussions in schools would encourage more people to launch offers. We hope more candidates will run for office, although partisan politics infecting school decisions is worrisome.

Good news came last week when recall attempts were unsuccessful against four members of the existing school board in Mequon, north of Milwaukee. Thousands of dollars in out-of-state cash influenced the race, which gained national attention. Wisconsin has seen recall attempts against 36 school board members in 16 districts (mostly related to COVID-19 restrictions) since the start of the pandemic, according to Middleton-based Ballotpedia. It was the highest number of any state except California, which is seven times the size of Wisconsin.

Rather than trying to remove public servants in the middle of their terms, the time to run for office is the regular spring election.

Potential applicants should start preparing now by visiting schools, perfecting their platforms, talking to neighbors, and seeking approvals. Candidates can start collecting nomination signatures on December 1. They’ll only need 20 signatures in small school districts, or more than 100 in big cities like Madison, by January 4. The spring primary is February 15th. the election is April 5.

Candidates for school boards are officially non-partisan, which is good. They are mainly volunteers. At Madison, members earn $ 8,000 a year for what may seem like a full-time job.

Schools in Madison have been closed for most of the last year to in-person instruction, frustrating many parents and students. Most other districts have found ways to safely educate their children in person despite the virus.

Since police were pulled from Madison high schools, disturbing violence has occurred. Property taxes are up 9%. Gaps in success persist.

The many challenges of the neighborhood and its successes deserve a lot of attention. This will require candidates.

Schools are essential to the health and success of every community, large or small. Please consider running this spring if you are passionate about the future of our children.

___

Root Journal Times. November 10, 2021.

Editorial: Governors shouldn’t try to muzzle professors

Three University of Florida professors have been temporarily barred from assisting plaintiffs in a lawsuit to overturn the state’s new voting rights law.

In the face of a storm of protests, the university on Friday abandoned plans to ban Sharon D. Wright Austin, Daniel A. Smith and Michael McDonald from testifying in the trial. Hours later, however, professors sued university officials in federal court, claiming their First Amendment rights had been violated. They asked the court to permanently ban the university from limiting their outside work on matters contrary to the interests of the state.

The ban, as The New York Times said before it was lifted, “is an extraordinary limit on speech that raises questions about academic freedom and First Amendment rights.”

University officials told the three that because the school was a state institution, participating in a lawsuit against the state “is against UF’s interests” and could not be allowed.

In their case, lawyers sought to question Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, to see if he was involved in the decision.

We recognize that DeSantis has its supporters and detractors outside of Florida. This is where we ask you to temporarily put aside your political leanings.

Why does the Journal Times publish an op-ed on the Florida governor’s activities with regard to the University of Florida?

We don’t want precedents to be created.

“The goal of a university and academic freedom is to enable academics to conduct free research,” said Henry Reichman, professor emeritus of history at California State University-East Bay and author of two books on academic freedom, in a Times interview. “The ultimate logic of this is that you can be an expert in the United States, except in the state where you actually work and get paid by the state.”

We wouldn’t want a governor of Wisconsin, of any party, to think they could muzzle the professors of the UW system.

System professors conduct research paid for by Wisconsin taxpayers. They work for us, as does the governor.

We reserve the right to call on the experts whose salaries we pay.