|
By Kevin Fischer
Monday, Dec 31 2007, 05:00 AM
For the past 10 days, I have highlighted what I believe were the top Franklin news stories of the past year.
Today, I unveil what I believe was the #1 story in our city in 2007 because it affected our most prized commodity: our children. In fact, this story has an impact for every child in the state of Wisconsin. Yes, it’s that important.
The story: Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge John Franke ruled against the city of Franklin's lawsuit against sex offender Steve Hanke who, for now, will be allowed to live in his Franklin home 600 feet from a middle school. Franke ruled against current law, innocent families and children, and sided with a convicted sex offender.
Here’s the background. Hanke, now 54 years old, bought a Franklin home in the 8200 block of S. 77th Street five months after Franklin adopted a milestone ordinance restricting certain sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools, day-care centers and other places where children might congregate. Hanke bought a residence in June in the 8200 block of South 77th Street that is just a few hundred feet from Forest Park Middle School, a clear violation of Franklin’s ordinance. Hanke refused to leave and Franklin took the necessary legal action to force him out. The city of Franklin filed a lawsuit to evict Hanke, a registered sex offender. Hanke was sentenced to nine years in prison in 1996 for second-degree sexual assault.
Hanke's attorney, Andrew Arena, made the incredibly insulting comment that Franklin residents were overreacting. "The sky is falling in Franklin," he said. "It's just ridiculous."
At an informational meeting, concerned residents were told that if the city lost its lawsuit against Hanke, that would practically nullify the city’s tough restrictive ordinance that communities all across the state are using as a model to pass their own similar laws. Should Franklin lose this lawsuit, the teeth would be taken right out of its ordinance and the fear that a facility to house numerous sexually violent persons could be built in Franklin would start all over again. The city of Franklin is to be credited with aggressively going after Steven Hanke in court. Last fall, a court hearing on the matter was held before Judge Franke. Franke is a very liberal judge with a history.
In June of 2003, Franke released one of Wisconsin’s most notorious predators, four-time-convicted child molester Billy Lee Morford, to a home reportedly less than a mile from two schools and a park. Morford was the first sexual predator given supervised release in the city of Milwaukee.
In 1997, Franke granted predator Shawn Schulpius supervised release, contingent on the creation of a plan for housing and monitoring him in Milwaukee. But for more than two years, officials could not find supervised housing for Schulpius in the city. In 2000, Franke reversed himself, saying Schulpius didn't deserve release after all.
As I mentioned on WISN filling in for Mark Belling, according to an article in the Green Bay Press Gazette, “At least 11 Wisconsin municipalities have passed some restrictions on sex offenders, whether residency limitations or restrictive zones where certain types of offenders are not allowed. Twenty-five more are considering similar restrictions, said Tom Smith, a registration specialist with the Department of Corrections.”
A caller to my show on WISN said the decision could always be reversed on appeal. Appeals take time, are not guaranteed, and in the meantime, sex offenders could ignore ordinances and move into areas around schools, day care centers, etc.
Despite a strong showing of support by Franklin residents at the hearing, Judge Franke ruled in favor of Hanke.
My analysis:
1) Clearly Franke could have and should have ruled in favor of Franklin. I submit that no appeal would have overturned his ruling. Hanke is in clear violation of a constitutional ordinance.
2) Once again, the rights of a convicted criminal are paramount to those of law-abiding citizens.
3) Hanke ignored the mountain of evidence and studies that show offenders like Hanke are likely to re-offend. One of my sources at the Courthouse wrote me the following, summing up what Franke said in court on this part of the ruling:
The judge spoke at length on the issue of assessing risk – what is the risk of injury if the injunction is not granted? While there is a “chance” of child assault, it is too difficult to apply recidivism statistics to one individual without expert witness. The risk over a short period of time is very small. Hanke committed his crime against someone with whom he had a very long-term and close relationship, thus lowering the chances that he would assault a child at random.
That is an absolutely outrageous assertion for this judge to make, essentially minimizing and trivializing the potential danger that is real.
4) Franklin lost in a big way. As this case drags on, and it will for some time, possibly until August of next year, it allows Hanke to remain in his Franklin home, 600 feet away from a Franklin middle school.
5) Franke sent a loud message to other sex offenders that it’s ok to challenge and defy laws established to restrict where these perverts live.
6) This is another example of why people lose faith and trust in their government and legal system.
7) Franke has now in three major cases involving dangerous sex offenders. Every time he has ruled in favor of the criminal.
God forbid that Hanke assault another child, but if he does, it's on Judge Franke's hands.
THE TOP 10 FRANKLIN STORIES OF 2007
1) JUDGE FRANKE RULES IN FAVOR OF HANKE
2) FRANKLIN VOTERS SOUNDLY REJECT REFERENDA
3) SCHOOL BOARD ADOPTS A 5.9% (NOT REALLY) TAX LEVY INCREASE
4) "ASSEMBLY" AT FRANKLIN HIGH BEFORE ELECTION
5) FRANKLIN ADOPTS A MODEL SEX OFFENDER ORDINANCE
6) THE GRAND OPENING OF SENDIK’S
7) THE EMERGENCE OF THE FRANKLIN BLOGGERS
8) FRANKLIN CITY TAX LEVY GOES UP 5.7%
9) SUPERINTENDENT SZAKACS FORCED OUT
10) THE LACK OF PROGRESS AT FOUNTAINS OF FRANKLIN
|
By Kevin Fischer
Sunday, Dec 30 2007, 12:01 AM
Supporters had an organized group working on its behalf.
The Franklin School District discussed it at numerous meetings open to the public.
A special video was produced by the school district. Teachers talked about it openly in classrooms during school time. Pamphlets were handed to students to take home to parents. In a last ditch desperate move, an "Assembly" was held the Friday before Election Day where Franklin High School students were brought together behind closed doors and drilled. They even threatened that ghetto-like trailers would have to be set up at some schools. Opponents had.......well........only me writing on my blogs. And yet, April's $78-million referenda were resoundingly defeated by voters. A higher voter turnout for an April election in an odd -year added to an incredibly expensive price tag shot the two questions down in flames by a 60-40 margin. On the night of April 3rd, I blogged:
Congratulations, Franklin voters!
Today, you sent a strong and powerful message to the taxing authorities that while you support quality education, you also favor the return of fiscal sanity to your community.
It is extremely encouraging that the Franklin community today stood tall and strong, declaring in a loud and clear voice that you will not tolerate exorbitant taxes and spending.
Thank you, Franklin voters for standing up and proclaiming that you refuse to increase your already excessive tax burden.
Days after the stinging defeat, I continued to get e-mails on the issue. One writer commented on remarks made by School Board member Sue Huhn on this web site and in the Community Newspaper in an article written by John Neville:
Huhn predicted the next school district referendum will not feature a new high school. She said it's more likely the next will propose a second middle school with extensive revamping of the high school. The latter, she said, will include some expansion - a new gym and auditorium with more fine arts department space.
An e-mailer wrote:
Tone deaf? “We don’t want to pay for an auditorium or a new gym when our kids kant spel!”
Where’s the improvement in the EDUCATIONAL facilities? They shouldn’t be in athletics if they can’t make change at McDonalds or write a coherent paragraph!
Still another e-mailer tied in the failed referenda to criticisms being made by, what the e-mailer called “eco-bloggers,” about one of the major development projects in Franklin.
That e-mailer wrote:
Some of the eco-bloggers here in town are all in a tizzy about the “sea of asphalt” on preliminary plans for the Shops at Wyndham Ridge… I’ve heard that the proposal will be for something like 900(parking) spots in the entire development…. Where was the eco-outrage at the 1000 spots for STUDENTS? I’m certain that the school district would not have added a good deal of eco-amenities such as covered walkways, extra wide grassy areas and salt resistant landscaping to their sea of asphalt… Fair is fair and being consistent is important.
So what happened? Why did the referenda fail so miserably? There were many factors that contributed to the referenda defeat I wrote about shortly after Election Day:
1) Sticker shock. The $78-million price tag was simply too high.
2) No guarantees. The school district could not convince voters that spending $78-million would automatically result in dramatic improvement in student achievement.
3) Empty promises. At their own informational meetings, school officials admitted that even if the referenda were approved, class sizes might not get smaller.
4) Blank check. The school district had no plans, no drawings of what the new high school would look like, and no site for the new school.
5) Timing. Property owners just paid their bills a few months ago. Wisconsin taxes are among the highest in the nation. This was not the time to ask for a massive property tax increase.
6) Needs vs. wants. The school district needed a Buick, but asked for a Rolls Royce.
7) Attitude. It’s never good to insult the voters. They saw right through the arrogant, “But you just don’t understand, let me try to explain it to you” approach.
8) Bad omen I. Two School Board members chose not to seek re-election.
9) Bad omen II. The main cheerleader for the referenda, the school superintendent, comes out of a closed door meeting wit the School Board and says he’s resigning.
10) The public trust. Add #’s 8 and 9, and your credibility with the public is eroding.
11) Bad PR. Someone puts fliers promoting the referenda in City Hall. It came to our attention, the fliers were removed immediately for obvious reasons.
12) More bad PR. The Friday before the election, Franklin High School seniors of voting age are sent to an Assembly on school time, and are drilled about the importance of voting, “yes.” WTMJ-AM reported it, and just days before the election, supporters look disorganized and desperate.
13) Major miscalculation. Supporters thought they could go to the voters, play the guilt card, proclaim “it’s for the children,” and ask for the moon. Thinking the tax revolt was dead, they underestimated the anger of the taxpayers, who sent a loud and clear message at the polls.
There were many reasons to vote NO, but I’ll bet most of the NO voters never got beyond reason #1….the sticker shock.
The obvious question now is, what happens next? If I were on the Franklin School Board or the new superintendent, whoever he or she is, I’d display tremendous respect for the voters and exhibit a lot of restraint. You came, you asked, you were dumped. It would behoove the powers that be to put their hat away for awhile before they go back to the voters to pass it around again.
In an issue of Wisconsin School News put out by the Wisconsin Association of School Boards around the time of the election, Tom Joynt of the Administrative Leadership Department at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee wrote about successful referendum strategies. The basis of his article is a 20-question survey that was mailed to the superintendents in all 70 school districts that had a successful referendum in 2005 or 2006. Forty-four completed surveys were returned, a response rate of 63 percent.
The survey was split into two sections: “Deciding to Hold a Referendum,” and “Strategies Used after a Decision Was Made to Hold a Referendum.”
In the “Deciding” section, the lowest-rated item was asking for student input on needs that were finally included in the final referendum. More weight was given to community input and opinions from staff.
After the decision was made to hold a referendum, there was a strong consensus to provide special information to parents and the media. I’m sure the Franklin School District got the word out to parents, but I can’t speak about their efforts to feed the news media. While the referenda garnered the obvious attention on this web site and in the community newspaper, it barely got a whimper in the Journal/Sentinel. To be fair, the Elmbrook referenda may have overshadowed our slightly smaller ballot questions. But it appears the school district needs to make major improvements in the media relations department.
The Wisconsin School News survey also generated strong support for providing district residents with estimates of the tax impact of a referendum. Here, I believe the Franklin School District dropped the ball. It chose to concentrate on the owner of a $250-thousand home. The less expensive homeowner, according to supporters would only pay what they considered a small tax increase. In embracing that approach, the supporters never told the whole story that included Wisconsin’s outrageous tax climate. The argument that if you had a three-car garage and a huge front lawn that you surely could plunk down even more in taxes didn’t draw guilt………it made voters upset.
Another survey idea that received a high endorsement if you wanted to have a successful referendum was to send a brochure to all community residents explaining all accurate details. Maybe Franklin officials thought they could save money by holding meetings, producing a video, and using the Internet. I never received one piece of propaganda. Many people I spoke with also got nothing in their mailbox. Again, a possible strategy that never made it into the Franklin playbook, and we all know what happened.
The survey respondents also highly recommended holding public forums. Now this, the school district did dozens of times. I can only surmise that whatever message that was disseminated at these public forums failed to resonate with those in attendance.
The personal comments on the survey are very, very interesting.
The superintendent in Oakfield, Joe Heinzelman warned, “Make sure you follow through on what you say will happen if a referendum fails.” The author of the article Tom Joynt writes, “Empty hyperbole and overstated claims before a referendum will haunt public officials for many years.” In Racine not too long ago, it was the threat of eliminating all high school athletics. (It never happened). In Franklin, the threat was that trailers would have to be installed. Did they mean it?
According to Joynt’s article, Sue Alexander, superintendent of Markesan “felt unity of the school board in supporting a referendum is significant.” Interesting. In Franklin, right before the election campaign, two incumbent school board members chose not to run. Three school board seats were filled on April 3 with all three candidates running unopposed, two of them opposed to the referenda.
Jamie Benson, superintendent in River Valley said the community-driven “yes” group was the “number one key to passing.” The NO vote had absolutely no organization. The YES vote did have an organized group, albeit it got in the game late and its effectiveness is highly questionable. Why wasn’t there a stronger organized COMMUNITY voice? That’s clear. The community never got behind this effort.
Superintendent David Wessel of Spencer offered this advice: “make sure you ask for enough,” but he also added, “don’t go overboard.”
And finally, Joynt writes, and this is where Franklin school officials need to listen up, that there were “cautions to school leaders not to take the outcome of a referendum personally, but to view the results as the voice of the people participating in democracy. One respondent observed, “It is really the responsibility of the community to decide what type of schools they want in their community.”
Franklin, you were not alone in your sentiment on referenda.
From the Green Bay Press Gazette:
All told this spring, voters around the state approved an estimated $239 million in new school district spending but rejected about $425 million.
Historically, when handed a defeat, referenda supporters always come back, again and again, and again, and again, and again, until they get what they want.
But with the prospect of recall elections being waged against some of their members, you don’t think the Franklin School Board would be foolish enough to propose another huge tax increase, do you?THE TOP 10 FRANKLIN STORIES OF 2007
1) ?
2) FRANKLIN VOTERS SOUNDLY REJECT REFERENDA
3) SCHOOL BOARD ADOPTS A 5.9% (NOT REALLY) TAX LEVY INCREASE
4) "ASSEMBLY" AT FRANKLIN HIGH BEFORE ELECTION
5) FRANKLIN ADOPTS A MODEL SEX OFFENDER ORDINANCE
6) THE GRAND OPENING OF SENDIK’S
7) THE EMERGENCE OF THE FRANKLIN BLOGGERS
8) FRANKLIN CITY TAX LEVY GOES UP 5.7%
9) SUPERINTENDENT SZAKACS FORCED OUT
10) THE LACK OF PROGRESS AT FOUNTAINS OF FRANKLIN
|
By Kevin Fischer
Saturday, Dec 29 2007, 05:00 AM
After the August 27th Franklin School Board meeting, I was convinced Franklin taxpayers were going to get hit with a huge school tax levy increase.
The problem was that I and everybody else thought the increase was going to be 5.6%.
Following the meeting that night, I blogged:
There was no talk or consideration or even thought of making cuts to avoid a whopping 5.6% school tax levy increase.
From the outset it was clear the intent was to label the state as the villain. School Board member Sue (God I wish I could triple your taxes right this second) Huhn started the state-bashing by saying the state “doesn’t always give money when we need it.”
Huhn also offered an ominous note, referring to the “need to revisit how to address that situation,” meaning the capacity of the school buildings. Translation: here comes another referendum.
Then Franklin School District Business Manager Jim Milzer was sent in to spearhead what could only be described as “OPERATION GLAZE THEIR EYES OVER,” giving a loooooooonnnnng numbers-heavy, yawner of a presentation on every single line of Franklin expenditures.
Milzer could have saved a lot of time and energy had he just got up and said, “TAX INCREASES……GOOD! STATE OF WISCONSIN………BAD!"
The Board gave temporary approval to a 5.6% school tax levy increase in August. Then appropriately, on Halloween night, FranklinNOW blogger Bryan Maersch wrote the following:
About 6:30 tonight did you hear a big sucking sound coming from Franklin.
That was the sound of your Franklin School Board voting a 5.9% increase in your school taxes. No that is not a typo, I said 5.9% not the 5.6% that was projected at the Meeting of the Electorate back in August.
In what seemed to be a perfectly choreographed question and answers session between School Board members and Franklin School District Business Manager Jim Milzer the question was asked, "Is a 5.9% increase our fate for the future?" Jim answered that it would be for the next 15 to 20 years.
The choreography continued with Board President Dave Szychlinski stating that residents would not support those continuous increases and community input would be needed to see what the community would support for cuts in future years.
Just a few weeks ago, I uncovered that the school tax levy increase wasn’t really 5.6% or 5.9% but, unbeknownst to the public, an incredible 11.7%. I was the first to announce this. There was no public accounting or acknowledgment from Franklin officials until I blogged about it. I am in the process of investigating what, if anything can be done about this situation.
School Board President Dave Szychlinski assured me he thought the Board was approving a 5.9% increase.
Here are all the details.
Stay tuned.
THE TOP 10 FRANKLIN STORIES OF 2007
1) ?
2) ?
3) SCHOOL BOARD ADOPTS A 5.9% (NOT REALLY) TAX LEVY INCREASE
4) "ASSEMBLY" AT FRANKLIN HIGH BEFORE ELECTION
5) FRANKLIN ADOPTS A MODEL SEX OFFENDER ORDINANCE
6) THE GRAND OPENING OF SENDIK’S
7) THE EMERGENCE OF THE FRANKLIN BLOGGERS
8) FRANKLIN CITY TAX LEVY GOES UP 5.7%
9) SUPERINTENDENT SZAKACS FORCED OUT
10) THE LACK OF PROGRESS AT FOUNTAINS OF FRANKLIN
|
By Kevin Fischer
Friday, Dec 28 2007, 05:00 AM
On April 2, 2007, the day before Franklin voters went to the polls to decide on two school referenda totaling $78-million, my blog had the following headline:Franklin school officials sink to sleazy new low to get votes
The Friday before Election Day, during school time, hundreds of Franklin High School seniors of voting age were taken to an Assembly and then drilled by school personnel about why they should vote for the referenda.
Doors to the Assembly reportedly were locked so no one could leave and no one could enter to see and hear what was going on.
I wrote the following:
The impropriety of this action by Franklin school officials is clear. The surprise Assembly on the Friday before the election should never have taken place. I’m not sure if the Assembly was illegal, but it certainly was extremely unethical.
It smacks of a desperate, underhanded, sleazy maneuver by folks who must be very worried about the outcome of the election. On principle alone, these referenda need to be resoundingly rejected.
Shame on the Franklin School District for this disgusting and despicable tactic!
Later on April 2, I blogged an e-mail I received from a Franklin parent:
Now that the school district has given the senior class a civics lesson and is encouraging them to exercise their right and privilege to vote(many for the first time):
1. Will they be excused from school to vote?
2. Will the students get a lesson in how to register to vote; how to determine what district they live in; and where their polling place is located?
3. Will they provide transportation to the polls?
4. Will they earn a grade for voting---how are the students going to be assessed following this civics lesson? Will they have to wear the I Voted sticker as proof of voting?
5. Will they tack on an additional 2 hours to the make up school days since the students missed first/second hour to attend this civic lesson?
I have more questions to add but the most important one is:
When will the investigation into the legality of this action begin? Who will be held accountable?
The referenda failed miserably.
Recently, we have learned from blogger Janet Evans’ open records requests that in the days following the election, e-mails went back and forth between school officials about the “Assembly.”
Not long after the election, the District Attorney’s office began to investigate and wanted answers from outgoing Superintendent Bill Szakacs.
No charges were filed, but the DA’s office is still reviewing other options.
Again, the “Assembly” was extremely unethical. Supposedly learned officials should have known better. They thought they could get away with it, and that’s why they did it.
School officials who objected at the time weren’t loud, persistent, aggressive, or effective enough.
The Franklin school district is the victim of inept management.
Students, their parents, and taxpayers deserve much better.
UPDATE 12 NOON, 12/28/07: RECALLS LAUNCHED AGAINST FRANKLIN SCHOOL MEMBERS
THE TOP 10 FRANKLIN STORIES OF 2007
1) ?
2) ?
3) ?
4) "ASSEMBLY" AT FRANKLIN HIGH BEFORE ELECTION
5) FRANKLIN ADOPTS A MODEL SEX OFFENDER ORDINANCE
6) THE GRAND OPENING OF SENDIK’S
7) THE EMERGENCE OF THE FRANKLIN BLOGGERS
8) FRANKLIN CITY TAX LEVY GOES UP 5.7%
9) SUPERINTENDENT SZAKACS FORCED OUT
10) THE LACK OF PROGRESS AT FOUNTAINS OF FRANKLIN
|
By Kevin Fischer
Thursday, Dec 27 2007, 05:00 AM
You can’t play follow the leader when you are the leader.
Dozens of communities in Wisconsin sought information from the city of Franklin about its milestone ordinance approved late in 2006 and amended in early 2007 that restricts where sex offenders can live. Other municipalities either considered or approved Franklin-like ordinances of their own in an effort to fight back against sex predators.
Franklin’s ordinance states that no sexually violent person on supervised release may live within two thousand feet of any of the following:
a. Any facility for children which means a public or private school, a group home, a residential care center for children and youth, a shelter care facility, a foster home, a treatment foster home, a day care center licensed under, a day care program, a day care provider, or a youth center.
b. Any facility used for:
1. a public park, parkway, parkland, park facility;
2. a public swimming pool;
3. a public library;
4. a recreational trail;
5. a public playground;
6. a school for children;
7. athletic fields used by children;
8. a movie theatre;
9. a daycare center;
10. the Milwaukee County Sports Complex and grounds;
11. a ski hill open to the public;
12. any specialized school for children, including, but not
limited to a gymnastics academy, dance academy or
music school;
13. a public or private golf course or range; and
14. aquatic facilities open to the public.
No person who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense and/or a crime against children, shall be permitted to reside in the City of Franklin unless the person lived in the City of Franklin at the time of the offense resulting in the person’s most recent conviction for committing the sexually violent offense and/or crime against children.
No person who has been convicted of or has been found delinquent of or has been found not guilty by reason of disease or mental defect of a sexually violent offense and/or a crime against children shall enter or be present upon any real property upon which there exists the above mentioned areas such as schools, day care centers, etc. Exceptions are when the properties are churches, synagogues or other houses of worship, polling places, and elementary and secondary schools the offenders are reasonably required to attend for educational purposes.
Franklin alderman Steve Olson, the architect of the ordinance, spoke with me on WISN early in 2007, telling me that he and his colleagues on the Common Council consulted extensively with Franklin’s legal team. Five public hearings were conducted. In other words, the ordinance got thorough scrutiny before being approved and Olson believes it would pass constitutional muster.
What inspired the Franklin ordinance?
A few years ago, busloads of Franklin residents stormed a public hearing at State Fair Park to protest a special state committee’s thought of building a facility in Franklin to house numerous sexually violent persons. Franklin was considered an ideal location, having the most open space in Milwaukee County.
The loud and strong stand by Franklin residents couldn’t be ignored. The special panel wrapped up its business without recommending any site in Milwaukee County for a sex predator house.
A flurry of activity ensued at the state Capitol. A key piece of legislation was approved and signed into law that killed funding for the facility for sexually violent persons and also disbanded the special committee assigned to find a location for the facility. Another bill signed into law makes first degree sexual assault of a child punishable by life in prison. Both bills were authored by state Senator Mary Lazich.
After sailing through the state Senate, a bill requiring that the worst sex offenders in the state be monitored by Global Positioning System or GPS was finally approved after much wrangling in the Assembly and signed into law.
Still, city of Franklin officials worried that released sex offenders would be dumped in Franklin. Sparking that fear was the state allowing notorious offender Billy Lee Morford to travel back and forth between his northwest side Milwaukee home and Franklin for 18 months without properly notifying Franklin.
After several public hearings and a thorough legal review, the Franklin Common Council approved the current ordinance.
There are critics.
Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Mel Flanagan was a member of a special Legislative Council Study Committee that worked on the placement of sex offenders. She told the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel, “If everyone in Milwaukee County adopted these ordinances, the only place that would be left for them to live would be River Hills. I don't think many can afford that."
Flanagan said every state in the country is dealing with the pressure for residency requirements. "In one community in Arizona, they set up a trailer at the end of an airport runway because that was the only spot available," Flanagan said.
Sorry, your honor. I am not sympathetic.
I prefer the sentiments of South Milwaukee Alderman Richard Radunez who worked on a similar ordinance in his community.
"My constituents are saying that it's about time,” Radunez said. “They're sick of the state putting these offenders in our city without us even knowing about it. I've heard people say, 'Put them all on an island out in the middle of the lake.' "
The Franklin Police Department used the city ordinance in 2007 to force offenders out of areas they’re not welcome.
The ordinance is now the subject of a court case. Convicted sex offender Steve Hanke purchased a home in Franklin several months after it went into effect. He refuses to move out of Franklin while he questions its constitutionality.
Jim McCarthy, a member of the City Council in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania wrote the following in a letter to the editor in the American City and County Magazine last summer. McCarthy was responding to an article that predator protection laws around the country are coming under fire. McCarthy writes:
“As one who has been trying for eight months to pass a law restricting where convicted sexual predators may reside or work in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., my research shows the majority of such laws have already passed court muster. Currently, 30 plus states, and hundreds of local communities, have passed such laws, most of them based on the “original” proposal passed by Iowa, which was upheld by the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court (see Doe vs. Miller), and Ohio's “Distance Marker” legislation, which was similarly upheld as constitutional by federal courts.
In challenges to the Iowa and Ohio laws, the courts have ruled that these laws do not infringe upon a person's rights in that they are a form of civil regulation and not a form of punishment, they are intended to protect children and are rationally related to that end, and they represent a rational argument that prohibiting sex offenders from places children congregate will advance a community's interest in protecting children. Two federal courts have upheld city actions to ban individual sex offenders from parks and recreation areas where children congregate.
There have been some isolated cases where a poorly written law was struck down by courts, but that was because the authors failed to do the research required to make their law iron-clad. It is up to us, the legislators, to make sure “they” do not have access to our little children, whose rights far outweigh the rights of someone who preys on the weakest of our society.”
Then last month, the Georgia Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a provision of a 2006 state law that prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of day care centers, schools, churches and other places where children congregate.
Meanwhile, a bill is circulating in the Wisconsin Legislature to do away with local ordinances like Franklin’s. So far, the bill appears to have little traction. Staunch, anti-predator legislators chair the committees in the state Assembly that would be assigned this legislation. It’s highly unlikely they would allow such a bill to see the light of day.
Franklin has taken the extraordinary step to protect its families and children and assist other communities that wish to implement the same measures. The city is to be commended for its outstanding public service.
THE TOP 10 FRANKLIN STORIES OF 2007
1) ?
2) ?
3) ?
4) ?
5) FRANKLIN ADOPTS A MODEL SEX OFFENDER ORDINANCE
6) THE GRAND OPENING OF SENDIK’S
7) THE EMERGENCE OF THE FRANKLIN BLOGGERS
8) FRANKLIN CITY TAX LEVY GOES UP 5.7%
9) SUPERINTENDENT SZAKACS FORCED OUT
10) THE LACK OF PROGRESS AT FOUNTAINS OF FRANKLIN
|
By Kevin Fischer
Wednesday, Dec 26 2007, 06:00 AM
In the game of economic development, Franklin finally hit a home run in 2007.
The grand opening of Sendik’s Food Market at 51st and Rawson on October 31st provided a much-needed boost to the Franklin economy and a shot in the arm to a city whose residents crave some, hell, ANY high quality shopping options.
I wrote in one of my first blogs earlier this year:
The citizenry of Franklin, one that is growing by leaps and bounds, is crying out for high-quality destination places to dine and shop. I’m not talking Applebee’s and Family Dollar. I’m talking the kinds of places that have people excited about getting in their cars and driving to Mayfair or the new Bayshore Town Center. The point is, wouldn’t it be nice to have those opportunities here so a trip to Brookfield or Wauwatosa wouldn’t be necessary?
Sendik’s opened to great fanfare, with anxious shoppers ready to ignore the customary opening speeches and ribbon-cutting and break down the doors.
The reviews were very positive and it appears the arrival of Sendik’s won’t close or hurt nearby Pick ‘n Save and Sentry, but will make them better. (A reliable source tells me Franklin’s Pick ‘n Save did over a million dollars’ worth of business Christmas Eve Day).
Franklin is blessed to be the only community to be the future home of not one but two of these quality stores.
Earlier this year, I posed the question whether this city of roughly 35,000 can sustain them? The more I pondered the question, the sillier it seemed. As I blogged not too long ago:
It’s like asking if Franklin can support two gas stations, two McDonald’s, two Pick ‘n Save’s, two pizza parlors, two ice cream joints, two sub shops.
Each Sendik’s is spaced far enough apart that both, I am confident, will do well. Sendik’s is so top-shelf that each of the stores will draw from their respective parts of town. My guess is the folks at business-savvy Sendik’s would never have entertained the prospect of opening two markets within miles of each other if they didn’t have the greatest of assurances they would succeed.
Franklin, shed your doubts. For years, the city has cried out for high-quality shopping venues. Sendik’s historically never even dreamed of crossing Wisconsin Avenue to the south. When they did, they chose Franklin, twice.
I truly believe Franklin and surrounding areas will welcome Sendik’s with open arms. No need for the inferiority complex here. Opening day at Sendik’s will be a celebration times two.
Doubting Thomas’ need to put their skepticism on hold. The beauty of two Sendik’s Food Markets competing and succeeding is that other potential developers who definitely are keeping track will take notice. If Sendik’s succeeds, Franklin succeeds. It’s like a domino effect. Others will see, others will take notice, others will want to set up shop, even if it means a dozen or so appearances before the Planning Commission to kiss the members’ rings.
I have no apprehensions whatsoever that each of the Sendik’s Food Markets will do exceptionally well. Hello!!!!……..they’re too good to fail.
The customer –service is top-rate. So are the quality and the variety of the food.
Sendik’s was, by far, the most exciting, positive Franklin news story of 2007.
I repeat what I wrote to close one of my earlier blogs:
This is what Franklin wants. It doesn't want a Dairy Queen. I hope the people in power who were at the ribbon cutting get it.
THE TOP 10 FRANKLIN STORIES OF 2007
1) ?
2) ?
3) ?
4) ?
5) ?
6) THE GRAND OPENING OF SENDIK’S
7) THE EMERGENCE OF THE FRANKLIN BLOGGERS
8) FRANKLIN CITY TAX LEVY GOES UP 5.7%
9) SUPERINTENDENT SZAKACS FORCED OUT
10) THE LACK OF PROGRESS AT FOUNTAINS OF FRANKLIN
|
By Kevin Fischer
Tuesday, Dec 25 2007, 06:00 AM
|
January 8, 2007.
State Senator Mary Lazich appears on FranklinNOW.com with this opening paragraph:
“Welcome to Conservatively Speaking, my new blog in the “Community Voices” section of this website. I am very excited about sharing news and insights about your state government, and I thank Community Newspapers and NOW Online Editor Mark Maley for this wonderful opportunity.”
And with that, blogs on FranklinNOW.com were born.
Yours truly soon followed as did others, and their blogs helped make FranklinNOW.com one of the most popular of the MyCommunityNOW sites.
The variety of topics covered is impressive.
Senator Lazich covers state government and other public service issues, and an occasional piece on motorcycles.
Bryan Maersch and Janet Evans keep a watchful eye on local politics.
Greg Kowalski writes about development and the environment.
Marjorie Pagel has a keen interest in local history.
Former blogger Fred Keller had a passion in his writing for the military, and also refused to accept the status quo of local politics. I hope he returns to the blogosphere soon.
The Franklin bloggers work very hard. They read. They research. They attend meetings. They question those in authority. They file open records requests. They seek out answers to questions that need to be asked. These volunteers share powerful information that brings residents closer to their community. That’s why I was stunned to read recently that a School Board member doesn’t read the blogs. I would think a locally elected official would want to use the blogs as a means of staying in touch with the community she represents. Ignoring the blogs, I feel, is a major mistake for any local pol.
Have the blogs made an impact?
You bet, in a way that wouldn’t be possible with the small reporting staff at each community paper. Just think about the substance the bloggers have provided all year long.
I’m proud that my blog was the only source to offer a perspective on why a NO vote was necessary on the April 3 referenda. Voters rejected both ballot questions by big margins.
There was more in 2007, a lot more.
The laser was focused on a troubled school system. Bloggers pointed out the unethical, if not illegal “Assembly” Franklin High School staged just before the referenda. There was a great attention paid to the ouster of a superintendent, a new School Board president, a highly controversial school budget process, and a former School Board President’s insider account of how some School Board members behaved and what they said that was very revealing.
City politics were not ignored. Officials at City Hall took some heat over another bloated budget.
Development projects were subjects of blogs from different perspectives. Blogger Greg Kowalski was critical of architecture at the proposed Target and circulated a petition for change. Others, like me, questioned Franklin’s process of approving projects. The blogs helped give exciting news about the grand opening of Sendik’s. And even though was little to write about anything going on at the main Fountains of Franklin site at 56th and Rawson, I wrote about it anyway, with my disappointment the focus.
The community came together when bloggers informed them of sex offender Steve Hanke’s refusal to obey a Franklin ordinance by staying in his Franklin home near a school. Readers were kept aware of all the latest developments in the case that has gone to the court system. I talked about it on WISN.
There is one incident that stands out in my memory of the past year that clearly demonstrates how influential the blogs can be.
Shortly after Mayor Taylor proposed in his city budget the elimination of the un-elected Environmental Commission and Economic Development, I wrote what I imagined would be a rather innocent account of my chance meeting at a restaurant with EC Commissioner Kristin Wilhelm.
She told the EC “doesn’t do anything” when I simply asked how things were with the Commission.
That one little blog touched off a firestorm in the community. Two commissions that few people were aware of suddenly got a couple weeks of attention and exposure (You’re welcome, guys).
I’m not sure, but that might have led Mayor Taylor to flip-flop and keep the commissions in the city budget after all. That blog came at about the time FranklinNOW started allowing readers to write their own responses to our blogs. An anonymous writer called me a “liar” on two occasions on Greg Kowalski’s blog. The same writer also had some vicious comments elsewhere that needed to be removed. When Greg Kowalski refused for many weeks to remove the offensive comments that were also proven to be untrue, I banned him from my blog.
The comments section has become, as I’ve pointed out, a separate blog. Readers check in to see what topics we’re writing about, and then return to see the verbal slugfest /soap opera that occasionally ensues.
It is my contention that anonymous bloggers and contributors, not all, can damage the Internet. Ideally, I wish all people who write in would give their real names and not some phony made up nickname. It’s not as easy to be offensive when you can’t hide behind an alias.
I know and have met all the bloggers. They’re good people who care deeply about what they write about.
Do we always agree?
No we don’t.
Does the discussion get heated at times?
Yes it does.
But that’s ok.
This isn’t Wisconsin Public Radio.
Passion, emotion, and yes, controversy should be embraced on the blogs. Writers shouldn’t shy away from issues because they fear they may step on some toes.
Thank you for checking in the past year. I know I have readers from all parts of the country.
For the life of me, I’ll never understand why you like some of the blogs that you do.
But I’m grateful.
THE TOP 10 FRANKLIN STORIES OF 2007
1) ?
2) ?
3) ?
4) ?
5) ?
6) ?
7) THE EMERGENCE OF THE FRANKLIN BLOGGERS
8) FRANKLIN CITY TAX LEVY GOES UP 5.7%
9) SUPERINTENDENT SZAKACS FORCED OUT
10) THE LACK OF PROGRESS AT FOUNTAINS OF FRANKLIN
|
By Kevin Fischer
Monday, Dec 24 2007, 08:00 AM
First, my disclaimer.
I know Mayor Tom Taylor. I know the Franklin aldermen.
I like them all. I respect them all.
End of disclaimer.
They let taxpayers down in 2007.
For most of the year, I harped about the Franklin School Board, the Franklin school district, and Franklin school taxes.
However, I strive to be consistent and fair. The same scrutiny I placed on the Franklin Public Schools needed to be focused on Franklin City Hall.
Our taxes are very high. As I wrote during my series on the top Franklin issues in August:
“A few months ago, a successful Greenfield businessman I know (who resides in New Berlin), unaware of my home community, asked me where I live.
When I told him, his immediate reaction, without hesitation, was laughter.
“Oh my goodness,” my friend said. “How do you put up with those high taxes?”
It’s a common reaction outside the 53132 zip code.
“Franklin’s nice, but those taxes are really high.”
“Aren’t your taxes outrageous?”
“How can you afford to live there?”
When Mayor Taylor submitted his budget proposal to the Franklin Common Council, it called for a 5.7% increase in the city tax levy.
Mayor Taylor is my friend. I consider him to be a good, decent, honorable man. However, an increase of 5.7% in the city tax levy is unacceptable.
It was now up to the Franklin aldermen to make some serious and difficult decisions on behalf of the beleaguered taxpayers they represent.
Didn’t happen.
Did the Franklin Common Council consider any cuts in the Mayor’s proposed budget? Any?
The Common Council essentially rubber-stamped the Mayor’s budget and the city tax levy is going up 5.7% next year.
Remember, in November of 2006, city of Franklin officials were far from fiscally responsible when they approved a budget with a 5.3% increase in the tax levy and a 9% increase in spending. The argument was that it could have been a lot worse.
As I wrote in one of my first blogs in late January:
“The citizens of Franklin are blessed to have devoted representatives working on their behalf. Mayor Tom Taylor and the entire Common Council are to be commended for their efforts. More municipalities in the tax hell we call Wisconsin should follow the lead of Franklin in exercising fiscal responsibility.
However, we can do even better. A spending increase next year of 9% with a tax levy increase of over 5%, I feel, is a bit unfortunate. The counter argument of, “Franklin: Our tax increase could have been higher,” just wouldn’t look good on a bumper sticker or a Chamber of Commerce ad. I challenge my friends at City Hall to use their talents to tighten the reins even further. Doing so will help retain and recruit more jobs, and prevent more gifted taxpayers from putting up the For Sale signs. I would issue the same challenge to members of the Franklin School Board. Wisconsin has the highest property taxes in the nation. The people who pay the bills deserve a break.”
Maybe they missed the news that Franklin is, indeed, a tax hell.
The Franklin Mayor and the Common Council failed to protect taxpayers, and on this particular issue deserve as much criticism as the Franklin School Board.
THE TOP 10 FRANKLIN STORIES OF 2007
1) ?
2) ?
3) ?
4) ?
5) ?
6) ?
7) ?
8) FRANKLIN CITY TAX LEVY GOES UP 5.7%
9) SUPERINTENDENT SZAKACS FORCED OUT
10) THE LACK OF PROGRESS AT FOUNTAINS OF FRANKLIN
|
By Kevin Fischer
Sunday, Dec 23 2007, 05:45 PM
The Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel, February 22, 2007:
“(Franklin)Schools Superintendent Bill Szakacs will resign from his position at the end of the school year and will receive an undisclosed settlement, the Franklin School District confirmed Thursday. There were few clues to the reasons for Szakacs' departure.”
Right in the middle of the debate over Franklin’s $78-million referenda, the proposal’s #1 cheerleader, the caretaker of the school district for three years was leaving.
Actually, Szakacs was asked to leave, forced out.
It took an open records request filed by the community newspaper to compel the Franklin School District to give a meager response that Szakacs, who earned an annual salary of $120,000 had reached a settlement providing a payment of $20,000 plus an additional four months of family health insurance coverage. The added coverage runs from September through December of this year. His resignation took effect on July 1.
The reason for the resignation was not disclosed in correspondence provided by the school district in response to an open records request by Oak Creek-Franklin-Greendale-Hales Corners Now.
Taxpayers deserved a full explanation on the Szakacs resignation. They never got one.
After the ballyhooed referenda failed by a large margin, the search began for a new superintendent. On May 10, the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel reported:
“The Franklin School Board is spending twice as much as it did three years ago for a private search firm to find a new superintendent, even though a growing number of Wisconsin school districts have used a less expensive method with good results. Franklin School Board members approved $22,800 earlier this year to pay School Exec Connect, an Illinois-based search firm, to find a replacement for outgoing Superintendent Bill Szakacs. That's more than twice as much as the $11,000 the School Board approved in 2004 to hire a different Illinois-based search firm, The Bickert Group, to find Szakacs, who announced his resignation in February, several months shy of the end of his extended contract.
Using a private search firm is no guarantee that a new hire will work out. But what irks some taxpayers here is that the School Board could have used the search services of the Wisconsin Association of School Boards, which typically charges $3,000 to $6,000 to find a superintendent.
Kevin Fischer, a critic of the Franklin School Board, said the board's decision to use a private search firm instead of a less expensive way shows the board is "playing fast and loose with the taxpayers' money.”
The Franklin School Board chose a new leader for the school system at a time when the public was the least interested, enthused, or engaged about the entire process. For most Franklin residents, the mental heavy lifting ended April 4. at the time of the search, I urged Franklin residents to stay informed, to follow and examine what’s happening very closely.
On June 4, the School Board announced that Dr. Steve Patz was the new superintendent beginning with the 2007-2008 school year. For the past eight years Patz served as Superintendent for Chilton Public Schools.
It left me wondering:
Was the new superintendent hired because he can improve student performance and achievement at Franklin?
Or was he hired because he has a successful track record of building new facilities and could possibly engineer a new referendum past the public?
FranklinNOW reporter John Neville wrote the following in a subsequent story:
“FPS spokeswoman Jennifer Klug said [new Superintendent Dr. Steven] Patz's annual salary and some other details of his contract have not yet been determined.”
That caused then-FranklinNOW blogger Fred Keller’s jaw to drop:
“I’m no Human Resources expert, nor do I negotiate employment contracts for a living, but how in the heck can the Franklin School Board hire a Superintendent and not nail down the guy’s annual salary?
Neville notes in his article that former Superintendent Dr. Bill Szakacs' annual salary was $120,000. So what’s the mystery; is Patz’ salary the same, more, or less than Szakacs’?
Call me old fashioned, but I have always known what my annual salary was BEFORE I accepted a new job.”
It was later divulged that Patz’s salary was $150,000 a big jump from Szakacs’.
But the Board and the District was very reluctant to release any information about anything associated with Szakacs’ forced resignation and the search for his replacement, even though their employers, the taxpayers, deserved to know.
The District Attorney’s office sent Szakacs a lengthy letter, demanding answers about a complaint that school district used resources to influence a YES vote on the referenda, including holding a controversial “Assembly” for Franklin High school seniors the Friday before the election.
No charges were filed, but the DA’s office is still reviewing the case.
Szakacs landed a job in Iowa.
The jury is out on Patz. It’s too early to tell how he’ll pan out. But he was selected by and works for a school board that has lost a great deal of respect and credibility in 2007.
THE TOP 10 FRANKLIN STORIES OF 2007
1) ?
2) ?
3) ?
4) ?
5) ?
6) ?
7) ?
8) ?
9) SUPERINTENDENT SZAKACS FORCED OUT
10) THE LACK OF PROGRESS AT FOUNTAINS OF FRANKLIN
|
By Kevin Fischer
Saturday, Dec 22 2007, 09:16 AM
|
TODAY I BEGIN A SERIES ON MY CHOICES FOR THE TOP 10 FRANKLIN NEWS STORIES OF 2007. I WILL POST A STORY EACH DAY, COUNTING DOWN TO THE #1 NEWS STORY ON DECEMBER 31ST.
Call it, “The Fountains of Failure.”
Sound disappointing?
It should, because the almost-total lack of progress at the promising Fountains of Franklin (FOF) is just that.
Throughout 2007, I’ve written several tongue –in-cheek blogs poking fun at the veritable ghost town at 56th and Rawson. When discussing FOF, many like to brag about Sendik’s and Andy’s down the street at 51st. Without those developments, FOF would be a complete disaster. For the purposes of today’s blog, I am referring to the site behind the FOF office building up the street from Sendik’s.
I am now less optimistic than I was 12 months ago and wonder if the community is being sold a bill of goods.
In late January, in one of my very first blogs, I wrote:
I had the opportunity to meet David Hintzman, President of Equitable Development LLC, one of the developers of the Fountains of Franklin. He impresses me as being fully dedicated to making the project work, complete with much sought after amenities and attractive architecture and landscaping. My advice to Hintzman: crank up the public relations/marketing campaign. I would venture to guess a great deal of Franklin has no idea how ambitious or enticing the Fountains of Franklin is. Heck, I bet a lot of people have never heard about it, period. Get the word out, pitch your project, and make people aware of what you’re planning in your office where I see the lights on late quite frequently. Get the media to do stories, and update your web site ASAP.
There were few, if any stories. Public relations campaign? What campaign? The FOF website, when it was up and running, remained virtually unchanged for long periods of time. Of course, how can you update when nothing is happening?
While I was taking jabs at FOF, Hintzman was showing FranklinNOW blogger Greg Kowalski around the site in late-June. Hintzman may have thought he’d get a more receptive attitude from Kowalski….and he did.
Kowalski wrote in June:
The developer, Dave Hintzman, told me plenty of things that this development is doing. The great landscaping, the great designs of the stores and offices, and of course - the spots where the fountains will reign supreme.
Not able to be seen from Rawson, The Fountains has foundations, sewer, electric, and fire hydrants already complete. One of the ponds behind the professional office building is complete. Today, I saw firsthand at least 6 dump trucks pull in, full of dirt ready to use for grading and smoothing of future parking lots....which at least one parking area is complete.
The word I got was the corner retail to the left of the FOF sign will be completed this year. The professional office building just needs a contract signing and that should begin getting underway.
Ever since having the wool pulled over his eyes, Kowalski has failed to write a negative word about FOF. I prefer to remain skeptical. Especially when the first “restaurant” (and only one so far) announced for FOF is a Dairy Queen.
When I hear “Dairy Queen” that doesn’t exactly scream “upscale.”
At the VIP party the night before the grand opening of Sendik’s I ran into Hintzman. The goal was to use the opening of Sendik’s to make some major announcement about new tenants.
Nada. Zilch. Same old same old.
Much of what we discussed was off the record and not for publication.
Generally speaking, I can tell you that Hintzman offered an explanation, if you will, of why things are taking so long to happen at FOF, a subject I’ve teased FOF about for many months.
Hintzman, in a nutshell, told me that it’s better to wait in order to get something worthwhile. But how long do we have to wait?
Without breaking a confidence, Hintzman is quite confident of two high-quality businesses coming into FOF that I can’t specify any further. I will believe it when I see it.
Where Hintzman lost me a bit is on the “good things come to those who wait” approach, especially when he told me it would result in garnering tenants that, “nobody else has.”
I guess that explains that new Dairy Queen.
I like Hintzman and want him to succeed. But the longer this goes on without major progress, the more I think the land at 56th and Rawson will remain dormant and we’ll never see what the FOF website now promises:
The Fountains of Franklin retail Lifestyle Center, located on the south side of Milwaukee County has now expanded to a 60 acre Downtown Plan. This new Downtown Area will be anchored by the number one specialty grocer Sendik’s Food Market, a Modern Performing Arts Center, a Medical/Professional Office Building and Gas Station/Car Wash. The variety and size of these anchors provide the necessary draw to assist in the success of their co-tenants. The Fountains of Franklin will also be home to tenants such as a full service salon /spa, bank, fashion stores, restaurants, and a café. This plan has been designed for significant pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
Pie in the sky?
THE TOP 10 FRANKLIN STORIES OF 2007
1) ?
2) ?
3) ?
4) ?
5) ?
6) ?
7) ?
8) ?
9) ?
10) THE LACK OF PROGRESS AT FOUNTAINS OF FRANKLIN
|
More Posts
|
|
