text:
Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee/Archive/1

[Untitled]
User:Mediator has taken upon his/her-self to create an alternate structure that is not something that everyone is in agreement with. There may be some benefits to have a Mediator role account but the Mediator has taken a lot on without consulting anyone or thinking it through carefully. This might be a place to discuss what the problems with User:Mediator are, so that the Mediation Committee can benefit from such discussion. Mediation should be voluntary, i.e. someone should be able to know that the mediators are somewhat neutral and willing to listen to both sides of a dispute. While anyone could be a mediator, a mediation committee may provide some good structure, and a place where it can be discussed.

Mediators may not always follow the tradition role model of mediation. In all cases they should strive to achieve conciliation through negotiation. Transformative justice principles adopt well to the mediation context. Mediators listen to both sides, they try to help one put oneself in the other's position. Mediators try to resolve differences in a mutually agreeable manner. Mediators avoid procedure, they use and set ground rules so meaningful discussions take place; they try to get the parties to listen to each other. — Alex756 19:26, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

--- moved from the article page by sannse 17:01, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'll probably move the content at User:Mediator/candidates here, pending discussion with Anthere, Eclect, etc. However we decide to have mediation, the people who'd be good mediators remain fairly constant. Martin 16:58, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * It is true that good mediators remain constant, so we may hope they will be interested in both concepts.

 * However, it must be noted that the idea is *not* that Jimbo has to approve anyone as mediator. Remember, anyone can be a "public" mediator anytime, and this does not have to be approved by Jimbo first hand. Everyone should be free to register here. But anyone, and of course Jimbo, is free as well to indicate they disagree with one of the persons listed here as being mediator. Perhaps, if several disagree with one of the persons listed here, it should not be offered to be mediator.

 * When a user will ask for Alex type of mediation, he will probably choose the mediator he wants to help him in the conflict. Similarly, it could be imagined that when asking (or accepting) mediation from User:Mediator, a user could just say he absolutely refuse that a given candidate help. It is mostly a question of trust. If a user in conflict does not trust, the mediation will clearly fail. It may be necessary that a mediator name is explicitely rejected.

 * I am quite optimistic on that point, as I think the group of mediators are also a group of trust, and one mediator will probably not hand off the user access to someone not showing skills as a mediator. Imho :-)

I am not quite sure what "Alex type mediation" is; my only point is that people can have a right to chose mediators. In practice of course, there are only some people who are mediators. I think a mediator who is not known to the people involved in mediation is a bit dangerous; it is better to know the person, and know where they are coming from; that makes it harder to allow them to steer the mediation in a direction they might want it to go in.

end of moved text

additional moved text

From User talk:Mediator
I don't like the idea of mediators being annonomous. I think they should use their own names. Noldoaran (Talk). 17:49, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

 * They are not anonymous. There's a list of them at Mediation Committee. Much of what is on this page was just 142's views on what mediation ought to involve. You should see Mediation and Arbitration (proposal) for more current information on the process. Angela. 18:40, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I understand that. Let me rephrase what I said: I don't like the idea of mediators mediating annonomously. Noldoaran (Talk) 19:00, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

 * Oh right. Well, that should probably be discussed at Wikipedia talk :Mediation Committee then. Angela. 19:07, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

end of additional moved text

see also: Wikipedia talk:Bans and blocks

BTW. I have written some stuff on meta, as a possible framework for mediation. I confess I wasn't thinking primarily about the English wikipedia while doing it, but trying to find stuff that should work on foreign language wiki's as well, where Jimbo Wales can not perhaps have as direct an oversight as on the English wikipedia. That said, as I have been tinkering with it, I am beginning to gather courage that it might not turn out to be totally useless for the English wikipedia either. The files I have drafted so far are Mediation, and Mediation oversight procedure. They probably need to be prettyfied quite substantially, and maybe voted on, after everybody else on the committee has had a tinker in them as well. Please note, that I personally don't think we should go beyond the framework, into micromanageing the mediation process. Each mediation should be formed by the issues at hand and the people participating. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 16:13, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

---

Reminding everyone that mediation is supposed to be consensual process.

 * by user:Sannse ; about when and how to start mediation.
 * by user:Delirium response to the above.
 * by user:alex756 ; more emphasis on the consensual nature of the mediation process and the need to, at some point, have mediation proceedings private.

Message to all mediators
There have been suggestions made on the mailing list that we should have some sort of chairperson for this. Does anyone want to volunteer. Also, we need to decide whether it would be useful to have a mailing list. I don't mind being the admin for the list, unless someone else wants to do, but I don't think I've got time to chair the committee at the moment. Angela. 17:58, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

 * I think a mailing list would be useful, it would be great if you could admin that. Do you know how to set it up?  I also feel unable to chair at the moment.  I think we shouldn't choose a chair until Jimbo has confirmed the full list of mediators (especially as I want to suggest TufKat for chair), but we can certainly find out which of us is willing to do the job -- sannse 19:48, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * I am still interested in being a part of the mediation process, and may be willing to be a chairman... What would that entail, exactly? My impression is that I would monitor mediation discussions and give private-type advice as necessary, to either committe members or parties to the dispute, and would also have a role in selecting people to be on the committee.  I may be wrong in this, as the last couple days have been hectic and I haven't read everything on the subject from the mailing list, and what I have read, wasn't in order. I think I mentioned on the mailing list a while back that I have experience as a mediator in a former job, so chairman might be a good role for me. Tuf-Kat 20:36, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)

 * I think that before saying Tuf Kat is the chair man, perhaps it would be nice to know precisely what the chair man is. I had an understanding of it, that was entirely different from what Tuf Kat is describing. Monitoring is discussed on meta, and Alex at least does not seem to consider monitoring is a good idea; private type advice are absolutely very important, but why would only the chairman provides some, why not all the members ? And last, why would only one person have a say in selecting people and not all members, or not all community ? I would like to know what is other people perception of what a chairman is. I thought it was more like a representant. Am I totally wrong here ? Tuf Kat, can you tell us more about what a chair man was in your previous job ? Do you think it is the best solution in this case ? Anthere

 * Oh, well then I think I confused an e-mail or something, because I thought that's what anthere had suggested -- I'm probably thinking of somebody else in a different context. I sent an e-mail to anthere and the others listed on this page.

 * Errr. No. I have no memory of having suggested that. Anthere

Having a chair that picks the commitee members and people what to do? No. I do not agree at all. Mediation is about people working together, not someone creating a hierarchy. If you need someone "in charge" it should be a coordinator who works to create training opportunities for volunteer mediators and who is available to just chat with mediators or direct them to another mediator who might have experience with dealing with a particular type of mediation conflict or discussion strategy. Mediation is supposed to be a private attempt at conflict resolution through a confidential consensual activity. If someone in mediation says, "no" it means "no". That is the kind of approach that mediators need to take, they are facilitators, not judges. There should be nobody in charge, just someone who makes sure that mediators have access to resources that they need and have someone to discuss strategies with. Just my opinion, for what it is worth. — Alex756 04:30, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * See above, and e-mail me Tucci528ATyahoo.com, Ilyrwch has weighed in to an informal cc list. (I essentially agree with Alex, I think a committee needs an organizer, but not anyone particularly more powerful than other members) Tuf-Kat 04:46, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * I finally succeeded to access wikipedia ! :-) I sent you all an email about that. I suppose that we should wait for others reactions. But I agree with what Alex wrote above, and with you TufKat, that we need an organiser, and someone to ensure things are just done very much. Anthere

Whats going on?
I have personally had conflict with fully 1/3rd of the mediation committe, in maybe the space of a week since creating Requests for mediation. Two have called into question my abilities as an editor. Two have called into question if I may be a troll, and one committe member suggested on conflicts between users that insults might be accurate to use in describing me. I am not pleased. If I am so bad, ban me. If you are so bad, shape up. If you can't mediate or behave moderately, lets make some changes. Jack 08:32, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The Title
Chairman and Members of the Committee, it is my consideration that this page could be moved to Mediators, in order to follow the standard used by the Arbitrators. Otherwise, that page should be moved to Arbitration Committee. My suggestion is but for the sake of consistency. -- Lord Emsworth 02:42, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)

 * I see no problem with that. Either way round would be fine with me although I have a slight preference for "mediation committee" because it centers on our group nature rather than on us as individuals.  -- sannse 11:05, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * I suggest that the arbitrators follow the standard used by the Mediators. I second Sannse : it is best to see us as a group than as a collection of individuals. Anthere

Suggestions
Chairman and Members of the Committee,

I beg to offer to your Committee certain suggestions. I hope to be forgiven if my suggestions have already been discussed and debated using your mailing lists, to which I am not privy, or if the determination of the process is the sole province of the members, and not of other persons.'

Firstly, I suggest that "Remember as well, that anything that will be said during the mediation will stay private, and will be used against you later on" (emphasis added) may have been a typographical error.

Secondly, I propose that a selection of a mediator by the entire committee might be too tedious a process. It is my suggestion that, in order to expedite matters, the Chairman be empowered to provide candidate mediators.

Thirdly, I propose that the venue for mediation be not always restricted to private e-mails. Each party should be able to express a preference as to whether mediation should occur at his or her own talk page, or through e-mail.

Fourthly, I propose that at the conclusion of each mediation, the mediator notify the community of the result thereof, either at a special page set up for the same purpose, or at some discussion page agreed upon by the committee. Such a notification should outline any agreement reached by the parties interested, or state that no agreement has been reached.

Fifthly, I propose that a reasonable time limit be set on mediations, so that the process does not drag on for indefinite periods of time. It is proposed further that the mediator be empowered to set whichever reasonable timetables he or she pleases, subject to the consent of the parties.

Sixthly, I propose that statistics of the mediation process be kept. Such statistics could allow others to judge which percentage of mediations were successful and unsuccessful, and how many proceeded to arbitration, and so on. The committee should designate a user (not necessarily a member) who would be responsible for making the necessary updates to these statistics.

Seventhly, I propose that an individual may not become a committee member save if he or she is an Administrator. The grant of the administratorship indicates the trust placed in the individual, and such trust seems entirely necessary for mediators.

Eighthly, I propose that mediators be not elected as arbitrators would be. In my opinion, one ought not to be forced to compete for the mediatorship. Rather, a process similar to the granting of administratorship could be used. A member would be nominated (either by himself or herself, or by another user subject to his or her acceptance), and then a vote could be taken on the said person's candidacy. Should a sufficient number be in favour, the grant of the post could be made.

Ninthly, I propose that the committee elect a Deputy Chairman to assist the Chairman.

I beg to request the consideration of my proposals.

-- Lord Emsworth 21:41, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)

Though I am not on the mediation committee either, I generally agree with Lord Emsworth's suggestions. In particular, point three I believe may be especially useful when mediating multi-way article-content disputes, as happened over the Mother Theresa article. In those cases it may be better to have a mediator organizing discussion on the talk page and doing whatever else he or she deems helpful, rather than a flurry of private emails between a half-dozen participants. Point seven I think is also reasonable, as we have a relatively low bar for trustworthiness and participation to be made Administrator, and I think the mediators should meet those qualifications at the very least. Point eight is the only one I'm vaguely wary of. I do think it's best not to have lots of elections, but I think perhaps reconstituting the committee every year or so would be a good idea, with preference given to retaining current members whose performance in that role is seen positively by the community. --Delirium 02:07, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)

 * We were using email for a while, but now all discussions are on the message boards.

 * Good point. :) Sannse's fixed that now.
 * I can see the advantage of this, but it is also important that those involved are happy with the mediator, so I think there has to be some option for them to choose.
 * That sounds a good idea.
 * I agree. That should definitely be done.
 * This has been raised on the message board. I agree it is important to have a time limit.
 * One problem with that is how do you decide a mediation was successful or unsuccessful?
 * This is on the message boards too. It's worth noting though not all of the arbitration committee are sysops.
 * I agree. There is no set number of mediators on the committee, and Jimbo said when he set it up that he expects the membership of this to be fairly fluid, so it's not like we have to choose between two people to be on it as both could be.
 * We're still undecided if we want a chairperson at the moment, let alone a deputy. :)

 * Thank you for your comments. My replies are just my personal opinions and are not meant to represent those of the committee. Angela. 03:15, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks you for giving your opinion. Most of these points have been raised in the discussion and another opinion is worthwhile. We have been initially using mailing lists, and some of the discussion have been reported on the message board.

Point 1 : is I think an excellent freudien slip. I am glad to see that someone is reading :-) thanks for noticing

Point 2 : has been discussed a lot, and is currently not decided. Generally speaking though, the committee is not willing to give to much power to a chair. Most mediators opinions is that there must be no notion of hierarchy between them, but that the chair must above all be an organiser.

Point 3 : means : email, phone, irc, icq, board ... I think you are right you should state it more clearly. However, I do not think talk pages are very suitable at that stage. If a public mediation was possible, it would already had been done. My own opinion is that a mediation entirely taking place on a user talk page would be out of the scope of the committee.

Point 4 : This has been discussed, and afaik, agreed widely upon.

Point 5 : This has been mentionned but there is no clear consensus on the point. It is probably best that reasonable time is used to achieve an agreement, but I do not think arbitrarily deciding of a time schedule in advance is a good idea. The mediator feeling is probably best.

Point 6 : We have not talked about that. I personnally do not think that human relationship may be drawn into equations ;-)

Point 7 : We have not been able to reach an agreement on that point yet. Some suggested that, since it would allow to avoid yet another vote. However, we do not want to exclude individuals who are very trusted, but have decided not to join the sysop team (and I do not think all sysops would make good mediators either). It has also been mentionned that why should be mediators necessarily be sysops (which often equal trusted) while some members of the arbitration team were not ?

Point 8 : that is likely roughly what will be agreed upon in the end.

Point 9 : as Angela said, some of us are not very convinced by the idea of having a chair...

I thank you Lord Emsworth. Anthere

Anthere, je vous remercie de répondre. (Pardon my French if it is incorrect.) And I further thank you, Angela, for answering. The success of the mediation would be measured by the mediator him or herself. A success could be defined as a mediation wherein the two parties have reached an agreement regarding the dispute. Perhaps "failure" is an inappropriate word for a lack of success, but I am hard pressed to think of a better term. As far as administratorship is concerned, I think that there could always be exceptions, especially for those who have declined it. But in the case of arbitration especially, it might become important because the arbiter (arbitrator?) could have to protect pages while they are being arbitrated, or have to ban non-compliant users, or have to delete pages as a result of his ruling. It would be more convenient to have the arbitrators (maybe not necessarily mediators) become administrators, as it would become tedious to keep having to ask another to perform tasks incidental to the arbitration. -- Lord Emsworth 18:42, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)

Bcorr
" A candidate is accepted when there is no opposition from the Mediation Committee, no veto from Jimbo, and general agreement from the community. "

There was clearly no general community agreement Sam Spade 19:43, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Sam, all four mediators who expressed an opinion were in favour of Brian joining the committee. Of the other contributors that commented, four out of five were also supportive.  Yours was the only "no" vote (Perl changed his initial no vote to yes).  I would say that is a clear enough consensus.  Regards -- sannse (talk) 20:35, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * You are dismissing both Perls earlier objection (which his later reasoning for adjusting in no way reduces the value of) and DontMessWithThis's strange statements, which certainly were not favorable. I find you assesment of "consensus" troubling, and antheres desire to edit my comments likewise. Sam Spade 20:41, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Perls earlier objection was withdrawn - whatever the reason I respect that choice. I'm sorry, I did miss DontMessWithThis's comments - which were negatve but not an explicit "no" vote.  I didn't see there were more further down the page.  I also missed Cimon's comments - which were again not explicit, but also not an objection.  I still see this as a general consensus for Brian's addition to the committee.  -- sannse (talk) 20:50, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Well then it is your definition of "general community agreement" which I object to, clearly. Sam Spade 21:01, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, it seems that's the area we disagree on. What is your definition of the phrase?  Perhaps explaining that might help here? -- sannse (talk) 23:26, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I would define it as pretty much everybody agreeing. Something more than just a majority, but an overwhelmong majority. What I saw was a general lack of interest: along with some specific complaints matched by specific compliments. What I did not see was anything resembling a "general community agreement" unless said "community" only refers to admins ;) Sam Spade 00:46, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Sorry for replying with a lesser indent. Sam, the mediation committee, as established by decree of Jimbo, was intended by him to have a more fluid, and less stringent entry and exit procedure, not more, than the Arbitration

committee. As the arbitration commitee is going to be replenished by a form of voting, in which it is highly unlikely that unanimity will even be approached, much less acheived, I suggest you are comprehensively barking up the wrong tree here. -- Cimon avaro 22:08, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

Some people (like me) just don't chime in unless things look to be heading the "wrong" way. For the record, I support BCorr's inclusion in the Mediation Committee. (DontMessWithThis posted something about a subpage, but failed to provide the link, so I can't even evaluate whether I should have misgivings over it.) -- Cyan 01:04, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I thought that was a bit weird myself, and to be frank I don't think I am going to have much success in this discussion, nor do I think its too terribly important. Its more of the principle of the matter, and the general atmosphere here on the wiki that rules are only for the proles, not for the bourgeois admins. I don't mind a hierarchy, but I expect those on the top to be held to a higher standard, not a lower one. Sam Spade 01:15, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lack of interest is a real problem. These votes are never going to attract the interest of a large part of the community (which actually, is true of "Requests for adminship" to some extent). I think in this case, "general community agreement" will have to be "enough agreement between those interested in commenting". "Enough" is going to be somewhat arbitrary unless we set a particular figure (70% of those commenting must be positive? 80%?). I think we need to look at ways of getting more interest in choosing mediators - one idea, off the top of my head, would be to have the vote at Requests for adminship. If we can get more participation it might make the community view more obvious. In Brian's case... we could reopen the vote and try and get more interest in participation - I think this would just cause delay at a time when we really need more mediators. Or we could go back to the old way of choosing mediators - direct appointment by Jimbo (which I am certain would lead to Brian being added to the committee). I believe the outcome would be the same in either case. So at this stage, especially with our need for more mediators, I think we should just leave be. -- sannse (talk) 21:01, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree that the same (IMO improper) result would be the same in almost any circumstance. Additionally I think that the phrase "general community agreement" does not in any way suggest a vote, but rather a near unaminity, which there clearly was not in this case. Its not the policy or process that needs changed here, its the obediance of it. In conclusion you will do as you like, and I will complain about it. Maybe one day you will run me off, or change your minds, or maybe we'll all lose interest, but this particular catagory of problem (admins ignoring policy) is not going to change anytime soon, and clearly Bcorr is a shoe-in for the "in crowd", general community agreement or no. Sam Spade 21:25, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure how else we would effectively assess community agreement. A vote (with discussion) seems the simplest way to do so.  The required result of that vote might be "near unaminity" though.

 * I think also it's important to note that the "policy" is still a suggested one, as the page says "The way in which this committee will work is not yet fully decided" - and that includes all policies. I think one thing we urgently need to do is make these decisions on how we are going to work.  That's something I want to work on over the next few weeks  -- sannse (talk) 17:33, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)


text:
William Stratton

William Grant Stratton (February 26, 1914 – March 2, 2001), was an American politician who served as the 32nd governor of Illinois from 1953 to 1961.

Early life and career
Born February 26, 1914 in Ingleside, Lake County, Illinois, the son of William J. Stratton, an Illinois politician and former Secretary of State, and Zula Van Wormer Stratton, he served two non-consecutive terms as an at-large representative from Illinois after he was elected in 1940 and 1946. He was elected State Treasurer in 1942 and 1950.

Mr. Stratton was educated in the public schools of Lake County, Illinois and graduated from the University of Arizona in 1934 with a degree in Political Science. In 1953, he received the annual alumni award from his alma mater. He holds honorary degrees from the University of Arizona, Bradley University, Lincoln Memorial University, Elmhurst, North Central and Shurtlell Colleges and John Marshall Law School.

He was first elected to the United States Congress from the state at-large in 1940. At 26, he was the youngest member of the 77th Congress. Following this two year term, he was elected State Treasurer. In 1944 he volunteered for service in the U.S. Navy and served in the Pacific Theatre of Operations in World War II. He joined the U.S. Navy, where he served as a lieutenant from 1944 to 1946.

Returning to civilian life in 1946, he was elected to the U.S. Congress from the state-at-large for a second time. While in Congress he served on the following committees; Banking and Currency, Flood Control, Civil Service and District of Columbia.

In 1950 he was elected State Treasurer for a second term. Mr. Stratton reduced substantially the cost of operating this office during his administration. Mr. Stratton was inaugurated as the 32nd Governor of Illinois on January 12, 1953. At 38, he was the youngest man to hold this office in 70 years. He was re-elected to a second term in 1956.

After his military service, Stratton returned to politics, serving as a delegate to the 1952, 1956, 1960 and 1976 Republican National Conventions.

He served on the Executive Committee of the Governors' Conference and in 1955 brought the annual meeting of the nation's governors to Illinois for the first time in history. In 1957, Governor Stratton was named chairman of the Governors' Conference, and served as president of the Council of State governments in 1958. In 1959, he was a member of the group of American Governors which visited Russia.

He was a candidate for Republican nomination for Vice President in 1960.

The Illinois governor has been instrumental in developing Governors' Conference programs in the fields of highway construction, traffic safety, and federal state governmental relations. President Eisenhower, in 1958, named Governor Stratton a member of the Lincoln Sesquicentennial commission and in 1959, Mr. Stratton was a delegate to the Republican National Convention, and in the latter year led the Illinois delegation as its chairman.

Governor
He won the Republican nomination for governor in 1952 and defeated Lieutenant Governor Sherwood Dixon to become the youngest governor in America at the time. Stratton was re-elected governor in 1956. in 1960, he ran for an unprecedented third consecutive term, but was defeated by Democrat Otto Kerner, Jr.

Stratton was acquitted on charges of tax evasion in 1965. In 1968, he ran in the Republican primary for Governor and was defeated by Richard B. Ogilvie. Stratton finished a distant third, with only about seven percent of the primary vote.

Mr. Stratton considered the construction of the first 200 miles of the Illinois tollway system as one of his biggest achievements, his wife, Shirley, said in a telephone interview.

During his tenure, state hospital reforms were instituted that included beds for inmates, a bond issue was approved that funded the state’s expressway system, the first woman was chosen in a cabinet level status, and an improved state sales tax was initiated and used in school programs. After running unsuccessfully for a third term, Stratton left office on January 9, 1961.

Personal life

In 1934, Stratton married Marion Hook. They had two children, Sandra (born 1936) and Diana (born 1939). Stratton and his wife spent most of their time apart because of his hectic political schedule, and Marion became dissatisfied with the marriage. Also, Marion despised the political arena and expressed distaste at her husband's relatively meager salary. Although Stratton did not want a divorce, his wife insisted that they end the marriage. He obtained a divorce from her on the grounds of desertion in 1949. Although Marion was granted custody of the children, they lived primarily with Stratton until 1952.

In 1950, Stratton married Shirley Breckenridge (1923-2019). They have a daughter, Nancy. His second marriage was a happier one, and Shirley actively campaigned for her husband. The two remained married until his death in 2001.

Stratton retired from politics after his failed 1968 gubernatorial race. Stratton died on March 2, 2001, and was buried at the Rosehill Cemetery in Chicago, Illinois. Interment at North Shore Garden of Memories, North Chicago, Ill.

Stratton was interested in the work of a number of civic fraternal and veterans' organizations. He was a 33rd degree Mason, Member; Lions Club, Eastern Star, Shrine, Eagles, Elks, Moose, Illinois Athletic Club (Chicago) and Delta Chi fraternity. As a veteran, he was a member of the American Legion, Amvets and Veterans of Foreign Wars. Stratton was a member of the Methodist Church. While maintaining the family home in Morris, he operated a livestock farm in Sangamon County.

Later life
In retirement, Stratton resided in Chicago. At the time of his death, he was a member of the Illinois Civil Service Commission.

He died at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago on March 2, 2001, at 87.

Legacy
The following are named in his honor:
 * Stratton Lock and Dam, on the Fox River, near McHenry, Illinois.
 * William G. Stratton State Park, on the Illinois River, in Morris, Illinois.
 * The William G. Stratton Building (formerly the State Office Building), in the Illinois State Capitol complex, which houses offices of many state legislators and other state agencies and was completed during his first term as governor.
 * Stratton Quadrangle at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville in recognition of his position as governor at the time of the university's founding. He was also the speaker at its first commencement in 1960.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: William Stratton


text:
Birmingham Americans

The Birmingham Americans were a professional American football team located in Birmingham, Alabama. They were members of the four-team Central Division of the World Football League (WFL). The Americans, founded in late December 1973, played in the upstart league's inaugural season in 1974. The team was owned by William "Bill" Putnam, doing business as Alabama Football, Inc.

The club played all of their home games at Legion Field. The most successful of the World Football League franchises, the Americans led the league in attendance and won all 13 of their home games. They developed a reputation for come-from-behind victories and winning by narrow margins. The Americans finished the 1974 regular season at 15–5 and won the 1974 World Bowl by one point over the Florida Blazers.

Financially unstable due to investor reluctance and lavish signing bonuses paid to lure National Football League (NFL) players to the new league, the team folded after only one season. Most of the team's assets were seized to pay back taxes; failed lawsuits to recover the signing bonus money kept the team in the headlines long after the WFL was itself defunct. The Americans were replaced as the Birmingham WFL franchise for the 1975 season by a new team called the Birmingham Vulcans.

Franchise history
Atlanta businessman William R. "Bill" Putnam was awarded an expansion franchise for Birmingham in the upstart World Football League and secured a lease to play at Legion Field. The five original investors in Alabama Football, Inc., all Atlanta businessmen, were majority owner Bill Putnam, Cecil Day, Lon Day, Jay Donnelly, and Erv Plesko. Between them they had already invested over US$1.5 million in the franchise and hoped to find ten investors in Birmingham to buy in for an additional $150,000 each. Unable to find local investors for the team, Putnam threatened to move the Americans from Birmingham before the start of the 1974 season. However, with more than 10,000 season tickets sold before the first game, the team's position in Birmingham was secured for the year.

Vince Costello, an assistant coach with the Cincinnati Bengals, was chosen as head coach/general manager. A few days after the announcement, he turned down the job to become an assistant with the Miami Dolphins. Jack Gotta, head coach of the Ottawa Rough Riders of the Canadian Football League (CFL), was hired. Gotta put together a solid squad, including veteran quarterback George Mira, rookie passer Matthew Reed, wide receiver Dennis Homan, running back Charley Harraway of the Redskins, and former St. Louis Cardinals and Auburn standout safety Larry Willingham. Johnny Musso, a former Alabama fullback with the CFL's BC Lions, was the Americans' first round pick in the WFL's "pro draft" in March 1974. Birmingham selected 42-year-old retired professional basketball player and former Atlanta Hawks head coach Richie Guerin in the fortieth and last round of that draft, drawing laughter from the audience. Radio play-by-play duties were handled by Larry Matson with color commentary provided by a series of guest commentators.

1974 season
Birmingham competed in the Central Division, along with the Chicago Fire, Memphis Southmen, and Detroit Wheels. The team began training camp on June 3 at the Marion Military Institute in Marion, Alabama, and broke camp during the first week in July. The Americans played a 20-game regular season with no pre-season games. (The team did however play one "controlled scrimmage" against the Jacksonville Sharks on Saturday, June 29, 1974.) Most games were played on Wednesday nights with nationally televised games on Thursday nights. The Americans won their first ten games, finishing the regular season 15–5, in second place in the Central Division behind Memphis. Midway through the season, the World Football League Players Association was formed and Americans fullback Charley Harraway was selected to serve as its first president. Alfred Jenkins was named the team's Most Valuable Player for the 1974 season.

First half
The Americans' first game was played on July 10, 1974, against the Southern California Sun in front of a crowd of 53,231 at Legion Field. (The announced attendance of 53,231 was inflated. The actual attendance figure was 43,031 for the opening game, of which 41,799 had paid.) Held scoreless by the Sun for the first three quarters and trailing by a touchdown at the start of the fourth quarter, the Americans came back to win 11–7. In their first road game, the Americans overcame a 26-point deficit at halftime to win 32–29 over the New York Stars in front of 17,943 at Downing Stadium on July 17, 1974. The second home game, a 58–33 win over the Memphis Southmen on July 24, drew an announced attendance of 61,319 fans (actual attendance was 54,413 with 40,367 paying).

In the first of back-to-back games against the Detroit Wheels, Birmingham quarterback Matthew Reed scored the game-winning touchdown with 2:12 remaining in the fourth quarter to secure a 21–18 victory. The July 31, 1974, road win was witnessed by 14,614 fans in Rynearson Stadium in Ypsilanti, Michigan. Reed led a four-play touchdown drive in the last 26 seconds of the Americans' third home game to give Birmingham another win, 28–22 over Detroit. An announced 56,453 (33,993 paying) fans sat through rain and foul weather to see the victory on August 7. Weather was also a factor in the Americans' fourth home game as driving rain delayed the start of the August 14 game against The Hawaiians and reduced attendance to 43,297. Fans at Legion Field saw a halftime show featuring grass skirt-clad hula dancers with music provided by the Tuscaloosa High School marching band in addition to the 39–0 victory by Birmingham.

The Americans travelled to Florida to face the Jacksonville Sharks, 27,140 Jacksonville fans, and the Sharks' new coach, Charlie Tate. Birmingham managed a 15–14 win with a touchdown by Charley Harraway and action point by quarterback Matthew Reed with 19 seconds remaining in the August 21 game. The Americans then went north to face the Chicago Fire on Thursday, August 29, 1974, in their first nationally televised game. Birmingham won that match-up 22–8 with 44,732 fans in attendance at Soldier Field.

A quick turnaround found the Americans back home for a Labor Day game against the Eastern Division-leading Florida Blazers on Monday, September 2, 1974, with 36,529 fans in the stadium. A fourth quarter scoring drive kept Birmingham's winning streak intact with a narrow 8–7 win over Florida. Another short week found the Americans in action on Saturday, September 7, 1974, at home against the Chicago Fire. Weather was again a factor as Hurricane Carmen pushed "torrential rains" into the Birmingham area, drenching the field, the players, and the 54,872 fans in attendance. A 34-yard field goal by Earl Sark with less than one minute to go in the game was the difference in Birmingham's 41–40 victory over Chicago.

Second half
Four games in just two weeks proved too much for the Americans as their ten-game winning streak came to an end on September 11 with a loss to the Memphis Southmen. After rallying for seven fourth-quarter comebacks in their first ten games, Birmingham lost 46–7 in front of a 30,675-strong crowd at Liberty Bowl Memorial Stadium.

The Americans' nationally televised September 19 home game against the Houston Texans proved to be the last WFL game for Houston as the following week the Texans were taken over by the league and relocated to Shreveport, Louisiana. Just 33,619 fans at Legion Field saw the 42–14 win for Birmingham, the beginning of a slow, downward trend in attendance figures that coincided with the start of college football season. The Americans who, in the words of UPI sportswriter Joe Carnicelli, "made the last-minute score almost their trademark", were upset 26–21 by the Portland Storm with 14,273 in the stands at Portland's Civic Stadium. The Storm scored the game-winning touchdown with 35 seconds left in the September 25 road contest.

The long flight across the Pacific Ocean did not help Birmingham for their October 2 game in Honolulu. The Americans lost 14–8 to The Hawaiians in front of 12,039 fans at Honolulu Stadium (demolished in 1976). Birmingham trailed after the first quarter but rallied to defeat the Portland Storm 30–8 in front of a below-average 25,621 hometown fans at Legion Field on October 9. The following week, on October 16, the Americans lost their third game in four weeks, falling 29–25 to the Southern California Sun before a crowd of 25,247 in Anaheim.

In mid-October, Americans team president Carol Stallworth announced that the team's remaining home games would start at 7 p.m. to "make it easier for our early-rising fans" than the original 8 p.m. kickoffs. Also, the Americans' game schedule was adjusted to accommodate the league's shifting and struggling franchises. The October 23 game against the Shreveport Steamer scheduled for Birmingham would be played on the road in Shreveport instead and, in return, their November 13 match-up was relocated from Shreveport's State Fair Stadium to Birmingham's Legion Field. On the road unexpectedly, the Americans suffered their only shutout of the season, falling to the Steamer 31–0 in front of 24,617 fans.

The October 30 game with the Florida Blazers was moved from Orlando to Birmingham, giving the Americans 11 home games in their 20-game regular season. This was one of two home games relocated out of Orlando as part of a legal settlement between the WFL and Blazers ownership to sell the financially troubled team, pay off debts, and get checks to players who had not been paid since mid-September. Not included in the Americans' season ticket package, this extra home game tallied the lowest home attendance to date for the Americans with 21,872 present at Legion Field. In that game, quarterback George Mira injured his shoulder in the second quarter and rookie Matthew Reed came off the bench to lead the Americans to a 26–18 victory.

Birmingham scored all of their points in the first half of their November 6 home game against the Philadelphia Bell then fought off a second-half comeback attempt by Philadelphia to win 26–23 before 22,963 at Legion Field. With this victory, the team clinched a spot in the WFL playoffs but the Birmingham franchise's increasing financial woes put the playing of the final regular season game in doubt. A deal with tax officials was worked out and the Americans wrapped up the regular season on November 13 with a 40–7 win over the Shreveport Steamer, marking three consecutive home game victories. With doubts as to whether this game would be played persisting until the day of the contest, ticket sales were poor; only 14,794 fans saw the final regular season game the Americans would play. Although they slumped to a .500 record in the second half, it was enough to finish second, behind Central Division-winning Memphis, at 15–5 and take the wild card slot in the six-team playoff series and earn a bye in the first round.

Post-season
After receiving a bye from the quarterfinal playoff games, Birmingham beat the Western Division-winning The Hawaiians in the semifinals, 22–19, in front of a sparse 15,379 at Legion Field. The Americans advanced to host the World Bowl, the WFL's championship game, on Thursday, December 5. Unpaid since early October, the Americans players staged a walkout on the Monday before the title game demanding back pay. The players returned when team ownership promised to buy each player a championship ring. The game went forward and Birmingham beat the Florida Blazers by a point, 22–21. This game was played with 32,376 fans in the stands, over 20,000 fewer than had witnessed the Americans' first game just five months before. This was the only championship game ever held by the WFL, as it folded 12 games into the 1975 regular season.

Financial fallout
In early November 1974, Alabama Attorney General Bill Baxley filed suit in Jefferson County Circuit Court for a tax lien against the team's property. The suit sought to recover the $30,000 in state income withholding taxes and more than $57,000 in sales taxes for August and September 1974 (plus a then-undetermined amount due for October 1974) due to the state of Alabama. The judge ordered Jefferson County's sheriff to "attach the property, real, personal and mixed, of the defendant, wherever it may be in Jefferson County." The team also admitted it owed roughly US$14,000 in back sales taxes to both Jefferson County and to the city of Birmingham.

The Birmingham motel where the coaching staff had its offices evicted the team for non-payment on November 14. At that time, the Americans had not paid their players for five weeks, nor their staff and coaches for two weeks. On November 18, 1974, the Internal Revenue Service filed its own tax liens of about $237,000 against the Americans and $160,000 against team owner Bill Putnam.

Putnam announced at a press conference that he was trying to raise the funds to pay the team's debts. He reported that the team had taken in about $2.3 million in gate receipts to that point, which left him "only $300,000 short of operating the club", but revealed that the team had also "paid out over $1.2 million in bonuses to future players." He asserted that the team would not be in such dire financial straits if that bonus money had not been paid. Putnam said that he would need to raise $750,000 by November 28 so the team could pay back taxes due to the state, county, and city as well as the salaries of players who had not been paid in four weeks. He said "If the money comes from Birmingham, we'll stay here but if the money comes from people in Timbuktu who want the team in Timbuktu, them we'll move there." Putnam said a group from New York was interested in purchasing the Americans. Putnam speculated that one reason he had been unable to secure "local money" to invest in the franchise was that local interests were still hoping to bring an NFL franchise to the city.

Loss of property
To attempt to pay back the debt and to allow the World Bowl to be played, the teams negotiated a deal with creditors to accept a portion of the gate receipts. After paying fixed costs associated with the game, the IRS and others due money would split 30 percent of the revenue with the teams receiving the remaining 70 percent to pay long-overdue player salaries. This revenue was split by the Americans and Blazers on a 60/40 basis with the World Bowl winners receiving the larger share. Based on gate receipts, each Americans player was to be paid about US$1,400 for their World Bowl play with each Blazers player taking home about US$1,000.

Hibbett Sporting Goods had provided uniforms and football equipment to the Americans but still had not been paid US$38,800 by the end of the season. Immediately after the championship victory, members of the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department seized the team's equipment and uniforms from the locker room. One week later, Hibbett Sporting Goods began selling the reclaimed gear as souvenirs and Christmas presents in their retail stores.

Loss of players
Oakland Raiders quarterback Kenny Stabler signed a contract with Birmingham in 1974. In January 1975, a circuit court judge found that the team was in arrears on payment of the remaining US$30,000 due to Stabler of the US$100,000 he was guaranteed for 1974 and so ruled that the Americans were in breach of contract and thus Stabler was released. The three-year deal was to have paid Stabler US$100,000 in both 1974 and 1975 while he played out his contract option with the Raiders and US$135,000 for the 1976 season when he would have been playing for the Americans. The judge ruled Stabler released from his contract and voided any debt to him by the then-struggling Americans franchise.

While the successor to the Americans, the Vulcans were a different organization and ownership from the Americans and did not assume any of their debts or obligations, including any of the Americans' player contracts. The Internal Revenue Service seized the Americans player contracts and placed them up for auction in March 1975 to pay the team's US$236,691 in overdue taxes but a judge ruled all of these player contracts breached and of no value. In any case, the auction was cancelled when a judge ruled that Birmingham Trust National Bank had a valid prior claim to the contracts.

Loss of franchise
Newly elected WFL president Chris Hemmeter was determined to impose a measure of financial sanity on the league. Among other things, he insisted that all potential owners establish a $650,000 line of credit with the league. Putnam tried to find more local investors to meet this requirement, but there were few takers.

In late January 1975, Hemmeter revoked the Americans' franchise due to the team's chronic financial woes. Hemmeter stated that the Americans owed a total of $2 million in bills, taxes and missed player salaries. However, the league said it had every intention of placing a new team in Birmingham. Putnam responded by suing the league, demanding to be compensated with the rights to New York City. However, the suit went nowhere.

On March 7, 1975, Ferd Weil, as president of the board of directors of a new WFL franchise for Birmingham, announced that the Birmingham WFL team for 1975 would be called the Birmingham Vulcans, a name previously registered by a group of Birmingham businessmen who had been trying to secure an NFL franchise for Birmingham. The Vulcans began selling shares of stock to the general public. Priced at US$10 per share and sold only in blocks of 10 shares, the team hoped to raise $1.5 million with this offering. The Vulcans officially secured the Birmingham franchise in April 1975. When the WFL folded for good 12 games into the ill-fated 1975 season, the Vulcans had the best record.

Legal pursuits
Kenny Stabler was not the only NFL player that the Americans signed to contracts but who never played for the WFL team. Detroit Lions wide receiver Ron Jessie was paid a $45,000 signing bonus in early 1974, to begin playing for the Americans in the 1975 season after completing his option year with the Lions. Dallas Cowboys defensive tackle Jethro Pugh and offensive tackle Rayfield Wright each received a $75,000 signing bonus, with Pugh set to start playing for the Americans in 1976 and Wright in 1977. Pittsburgh Steelers defensive end L. C. Greenwood received a $50,000 signing bonus to play from 1975. However, when the team folded both the WFL commissioner and a federal judge ruled that the player contracts had all been voided. These players remained in the NFL, playing neither for the Americans nor the successor Birmingham Vulcans team. Bill Putnam and his Alabama Football, Inc., still the legal owners of what little remained of the Americans' assets, made headlines through the late 1970s when he sued these NFL players claiming "breach of contract" to recover the signing bonus money. The players were ultimately able to keep the money after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in their favor.

Legacy
Financially devastated, former Americans team president Carol Stallworth became a bartender in a downtown Birmingham sports bar in early 1975. Most of the former Americans players signed on with the Birmingham Vulcans for the 1975 WFL season. Notable exceptions included star players Charley Harraway, Alfred Jenkins, Paul Robinson, and veteran quarterback George Mira. The Birmingham Bulls of the World Hockey Association held "Jack Gotta Night" on December 26, 1976, in honor of the former Americans head coach.

By July 1976, Americans owner Bill Putnam was working to buy a World Hockey Association franchise and relocate it to Hollywood, Florida, as the "Florida Breakers". The team was planned to start play in October 1976 with the Hollywood Sportatorium as its home ice. In August 1976, Putnam announced that his plan had "collapsed" but he would continue his attempts to bring a hockey franchise to south Florida.

Fans of the team organized a reunion celebration held July 9–10, 2004, in honor of the 30th anniversary of the Americans' first game played on July 10, 1974, against the Southern California Sun. One reason for the festivities was to help pay for the promised World Bowl championship rings that many players did not receive from the financial failing franchise. Dayton Daily News sportswriter Chick Ludwig discovered the omission while doing research for a book. He used his investigative skills to find that Jonsil Manufacturing in El Paso, Texas, made the original rings and could create replacement rings for $809 each. The story received national attention which prompted Nestlé and the AF2 Birmingham Steeldogs to help sponsor the reunion at the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame in Birmingham.

, three former Birmingham Americans players have been inducted into the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame. Muscle Shoals native Dennis Homan, who also played in Super Bowl V for the Dallas Cowboys, was inducted in the Class of 1999. Oxford native Terry Henley, who also played pro football for the Atlanta Falcons, Washington Redskins, and New England Patriots, was inducted in the Class of 2000. Cullman native Larry Willingham, who played for the St. Louis Cardinals and retired for medical reasons in 1973 but made a comeback in 1974 with the Americans, was inducted in the Class of 2003. Willingham and Henley were also elected to the Auburn Tigers football "1970s Team of the Decade".

title: Birmingham Americans