Tuesday, June 2, 2009

If You Don't Agree with Ginny Maziarka, You Must Be Crazy

Ad hominem alert!

West Bend resident Kristina Smithers recently filed an ethics complaint against Alderman Terry Vrana over comments he made regarding the current library dispute. Much like myself, she appears to take issue with some of Vrana's comments at recent council meetings. According to the media report:
Smithers alleges statements Vrana made during an April 21 Common Council meeting during debate over the reappointment of four Library Board members demonstrated unethical behavior because: He did not act in an independent, impartial manner; His “conduct did not reenforce the public’s confidence in the integrity of the city government;” “(H)e used his aldermanic position to purport his personal philosophy not that of the city as a whole.” Vrana had expressed an opinion that pornographic books were in the library’s young adult section.
Whether you agree with Smithers or Vrana, her complaint seems to be based on a reasonable premise, and the Ethics Committee is determining if it merits further consideration. They might throw it out as frivolous, or they might investigate further. That's how the process works, and it is every citizen's right to raise what they feel are potential ethical concerns.

Ginny Maziarka has a different take on this. Ginny, of course, doesn't agree with Smithers. But instead of addressing the core issue in Smithers' complaint, Maziarka argues we "should be looking at the complainant."

In her comments at Boots & Sabers, Ginny wonders aloud about Smithers: "Does she have a caretaker? And do they know she is loose?" And in her own blog post she accuses Smithers of being "maniacal" and links to this music video that depicts mental illness in a very mocking and insensitive manner.

So, let's sum up: mere days after many members of the community reached out to Ginny with condolences about the loss of her grandson, Ginny attacks someone who disagrees with her by insinuating she is mentally ill.

Remind me where in my Christian Bible it tells us this is ok?

// While I wasn't able to convince Ginny on her blog that her ad hominem attacks against Kristina Smithers were out of line, a response by Kristina herself here (comment #24) seems to finally struck a chord with Ginny. She apologized in comment #25 (insulting me in the process), and deleted the offensive post.

Luckily, I've learned my lesson with Ginny trying to cover her trails, and took a screenshot or her libelous rant:


  1. Are we surprised? At one point, Ginny claimed Smithers as a disciple and follower. A while back, Smithers came out in support of intellectual freedom. She crossed Ginny. One should never do that (sarcasm). Mental health issues are not exclusive to heathen - they run rampant in the likes of zealot Christians also!

  2. I am her. Smithers, but you can call me Kristina. To clarify.... When Ginny's complaint was first filed I did not agree my letter to the paper said as much. When it was amended the first time (right before the first library board meeting was scrubbed) at the point she wanted to ADD books to the collection to balance it out. That I did agree with her on. When the complaint was revised to what it is now, I disagreed again. If that makes me a flip flopper I guess I'll flip flop all the way to the nice sandy beach.
    To view my complete ethics complaint that was filed I will refere you to motley cows site. I am fairly sure he will post it. It was long and needed to be submitted to his blog in 2 parts.
    The main complaint was not adressed by the paper regarding his statement about not caring about policy.
    I will not try nor debate this case in the media or cyberspace. My comments about it will be limited at this point and only firectly related to the ethics complaint.

  3. As an outsider who has interest in the case of Ginny Maziarka and my observation of her tendency toward the theatric, I'm not at all surprised by her statements. I found it interesting that when she first found that I was following the story and writing about it, her attempts to keep up with the conversation were more than a little trite but heavy on the drama.

  4. Oh my, that woman is incorrigible.
    In the same breath she apoligizes to Kristina she insults her opposition. Don't get me wrong, I'm really glad she realized she's crossed a line, but seriously? You can't just be nice to someone without having to take a shot at someone else at the same time? Is this Newton's third law in a social setting? For every kind act there must be an equally mean act?