Hanewall: Lies are tearing the village apart




SHOREWOOD, Wis. (May 29, 2004) – Jeffrey Hanewall, the establishment candidate who placed third out of four in the April 6 election for two Village trustee seats, lashed out at ShorewoodVillage.com yesterday in a bitter show of passion and bias that sharply contrasts with his lackluster campaign, denouncing this Web site for “tearing apart the community”


“Do you realize how much you cost the Village in legal fees?” he demanded. “You are biased and write lies,” he taunted in support of his allegation, claiming further it was unfair to question legal fees of Village Attorney Raymond Pollen since we are the cause of his increased fees. “Did you ever ask Ellen Eckman for her opinions?” Mr. Hanewall threw in to up his rhetorical ante and, in his view, block any possible retort to his allegation of bias.


It is healthy to have such political discussions with one’s neighbors, even those as ill-informed as Mr. Hanewall, who despite his attempt to obtain public office has not appeared at a single Village Board meeting since he ran out of a meeting several months ago, shrieking “Are you calling me a woman? Are you calling me a woman?” How he has become so informed about whether the articles here are lies is a mystery he did not reveal, but since he was kind enough to spew his opinion as my son and I were walking our dog – our backs to N. Prospect as we headed east on the north side of E. Jarvis, where Mr. Hanewall was doing yard work.

Letter to the editor:


“How wonderful that Mr. Hanewell was NOT elected, because he obviously is in a comatose state. This village has been torn apart for many years, it has only been since the Library referendum passed that so many residents came to realize just how torn.


“Even after the election in April, it is VERY apparent there remains a great divide in this tiny village of only one mile square.  


“Since Ms. Carey was so informational to inform you of the chain of command that the library board hires the director and the director hires the remaini The illegal Eckman yard signs once displayed in contravention of election law had been replaced by one announcing the Shorewood Men’s Club’s annual chicken barbecue.ng staff, perhaps she could enlighten the village residents who she apparently does not think she works for, as to how the "staff "member who freely gave there teenager the security code to the library, was disciplined????? Or was it that ever superior judgment of this ever superior director and the board to just look the other way, as per status quo????


“I am sure there are those on the Village board, including Ms. Eckman who believe this past election was a show of the "good ole boys" mentality in this village being alive and well. I know its still alive, I don't think its as healthy as they may think. I don't think much of anything including the "divide" has changed, but I believe it will.


“Keep up your efforts; don't let them push you out.

-- Denise Scherer  


The illegal Eckman yard signs once displayed in contravention of election law had been replaced by one announcing the Shorewood Men’s Club’s annual chicken barbecue.

Let’s take a look at Mr. Hanewall’s concerns as an exercise in neighborliness, since he lives two houses down from me and I don’t want any hard feelings. Also, I get tired of calling police about attacks on my home by eggers who sneak around under cover of darkness in the kind of anonymous stupidity that apparently sympathizes with Mr. Hanewall’s values (and who behave very much like children of certain library employees); the anonymous and cowardly hate mail referred to the FBI and other tactics meant to harass and retaliate for exercise of constitutional guarantees and criticism of public figures.


  • First question: Do I know how much I cost the Village in legal bills by suing over illegal records retention polices and for gouging citizens on illegal copy charges? No, I do not, and neither does Mr. Hanewall, so the question is really an answerless projectile of nothingness – one of the reasons we have referred to Mr. Hanewall as a ‘Twinkie” – a crème-filled sponge cake with no substance. How can we know since the legal bills are not presented in a way that makes it possible to determine how much any particular issue or matter costs? Furthermore, the lawsuit should not have cost the Village anything because it has insurance against some claims, meaning that the huge amount Mr. Hanewall suggests the lawsuit cost is the product of either greed by the village attorney who took the opportunity of getting the Village sued to profit off his poor advice, or improper billing for services that were already paid for.

By the same token, Mr. Hanewall, do you know how much it cost the Village for your demand for a recount in your election loss – a recount that cost taxpayers an entire day of legal fees and staff time as poll workers, observers, representatives of you and your co-establishment candidate Ellen Eckman? Why aren’t you critical of yourself? Of course, again, your ignorance in this is understandable because the village attorney’s legal bills are not presented in a way that makes it possible to determine how much any particular issue or matter costs. Neither can you know how much your recount tantrum costs Trustee Michael Phinney, who vanquished you at the polls but had to bring his private attorney at his own expense, unlike you, who made the taxpayers take the hit.



  • Second: Questioning the village attorney’s bills is somehow unfair and tears the Village apart. Does Mr. Hanewall think bills should not be seen by the public, or that making them public is contrary to the village welfare? Perhaps the legal bills should be secret, like the library finances under the auspices of the Library Board upon which Mr. Hanewall sits. It might be argued that, on the other hand, it is the secret, elitist practices of the Library Board that tore this Village apart, and not the subsequent distrust of all government that ensued. Have you considered this, Mr. Hanewall, or haven’t you been programmed to factor that reality into your substanceless defense of all things establishment?     


  • Finally, Mr. Hanewall’s most curious challenge to this Web site’s integrity is the question, “Did you ever ask Ellen Eckman for her opinions?” Hello, Mr. Hanewall, is anyone home? Don’t you recall when all candidates – including you and Trustee Eckman -- were invited to comment on the policy that allows children to obtain adult oriented, sexually-oriented movies from the Village Library? Candidates Phinney and Patrick Krieger responded with intelligent, thoughtful statements of their position, which were published exactly as written. On the other hand, neither you nor Trustee Eckman felt compelled to answer a question of substance and important public policy when you were offered the opportunity to do so. How in the world can you possibly ask whether we ever asked Eckman when you know we did and you both declined? This, Mr. Hanewall, is why you are referred to as a “Twinkie.” Not only did the two of you not respond to our invitation, but you must recall the candidate forum where you and Eckman attacked this Web site and Phinney and Krieger for showing the ability to answer a question, regardless of the questioner. You both refuse to answer then complain of not being asked.


Mr. Hanewall, I invite you and Ms. Eckman to answer here. You challenged me to ask Ms. Eckman. I do so here. Respond to anything here and tell me why it is a lie. I will provide you with the evidence. This gives you the chance to prove me a liar, and it gives me the chance to prove I tell the truth.


But to not ask me would be a sign that none of your complaints is legitimate, and that you lack the substance to engage in dialogue.


Come on neighbor. I invite you to right all wrongs rather than hold your bitter grudge.