The Saints-Colts Super Bowl is being hailed as the most watched TV show ever.  

I watched the game Sunday with relatives and friends at my niece’s Super Bowl party.  

Super Bowl XLIV was a riveting game with two good teams.

Everyone at the party seemed to be rooting for the New Orleans Saints. 

We enjoyed this year’s Super Bowl game as much as the commercials.  

Speaking of commercials, I thought the one with Brett Favre was a hoot.

Most at the party thought  the half time performance by The Who was a bit of a dud, though.

While traveling on Blue Mound Road today, I saw drivers making U-turns at intersections with stop lights.

Don’t be surprised if you do, too.    

In his Journal Sentinel column (January 24 newspaper edition), Jim Stingl reports that it is no longer illegal to make U-turns at controlled intersections in Wisconsin, including those with stop and go lights. (Of course, wait until the light is green and making a U-turn when a sign specifically prohibits it is a no-no)

Stingl thanks the State Legislature for this change and credits Brookfield Mayor Jeff Speaker for coming up with the idea to make it easier for folks to get to businesses on Blue Mound.

That's great. But hopefully, it won't result in more accidents.

The  Feb 1 Journal Sentinel news article  headlined Former political allies battle in court over money conveys that  Bob Dohnal is suing his “former comrade” JJ Blonien.

It reports that  Dohnal is accusing Blonien of “failing to come up with his half of the cash needed to launch a jointly run political newsletter called The Sportsman’s Digest. " Dohnal claims he’s owed nearly $21,000 plus interest.

See the JS watchdog article  for more information. A link to Wisconsin Circuit Court Access is included in Dan Bice's article. 

Who is JJ Blonien?  

The JS article describes him as a politico who tried to push Republicans to the right and conservative candidates into elective office.  It says Dohnal had been publisher and Blonien the editor of  Wisconsin Conservative Digest and " the pair helped promote Tom Reynolds, a kooky one-term senator from West Allis."   

It doesn't mention that Blonien, a New Berlin resident, ran for alderman against Bill Moore in 2008.

Moore defeated Blonien and was re-elected 6^th District Alderman.

----Moore was the first candidate that had been endorsed/ supported by We Care New Berlin.  

----Blonien had been endorsed/supported by New Berlin Citizens for Responsible Government  

Re: City and School government:

On January 12, the New Berlin Common Council unanimously approved Mayor Jack Chiovatero’s appointment of Ralph Chipman as Director of Finance. Mr. Chipman had been New Berlin’s Accounting Manager for many years. The City’s previous Finance Director  was Mike Holzinger. 

On January 26, the New Berlin Common Council unanimously approved Mayor Chiovatero’s appointment of Kari Morgan as City Clerk, with an effective date of Feb. 16, 2010.  Ms. Morgan is Town of Raymond (Racine County) City Clerk.  Marilyn Gauger was New Berlin’s City Clerk for about 7 years.  Christine Stefanich is New Berlin’s Deputy City Clerk.

This year’s application period for Open Enrollment is February 1 through Feb 19.    At the January 11 New Berlin School Board meeting, an attorney gave a presentation about statutory requirements pertaining to Open Enrollment. On Jan. 25, the New Berlin BOE voted to declare the district’s Open Enrollment seats for the upcoming 2010-2011 school year as NONE.  Click on the podcasts of the Jan. 11 and Jan. 25 meetings for more information/ hear the discussion.      

The City of New Berlin Web site (Department of City Clerk ) conveys:   

On February 16, the City of New Berlin will have a Primary Election for the office of Alderman in District 5. The candidates are Jake Krueger, Joe Poshepny and Deena Liska.

There is also a Primary for the Elmbrook Board of Education Seat. The candidates are Robert Ziegler, Kathryn Wilson, Sandra Schultz, Beth Horneffer, Warren Groff and Genevieve Schmidt. Contact the Elmbrook School District for information on those candidates.

(The City of New Berlin has 4 school districts: New Berlin, Elmbrook, West Allis and Muskego)  

By the way, the Elmbrook School District Web site has information regarding their school board election, including candidate profiles, and a candidate forum set for Feb 2.  It’s really quite impressive.

The Web site also reports that Elmbrook Schools recently received the Wisconsin Forward Award and states: “This outstanding honor demonstrates our district-wide commitment to continuous improvement and recognizes the outstanding work and performance of the entire Elmbrook Schools Community.” 

Wisconsin Forward Award’s Web site declares:    “ Wisconsin Forward Award, Inc. (WFA) partners with Wisconsin organizations to solve the issues of competitive performance, operational excellence, and sustainability, leading to improved economic performance, creating jobs, and improving the quality of life in Wisconsin. “       

At its January 12 meeting, the Council discussed allowing advertisements on the official City of New Berlin Web site.   

Perhaps you saw the subsequent Jan. 19 Journal Sentinel news story headlined “New Berlin seeks Web revenue.”

Unfortunately, significant information was omitted . The news article neglected to mention that City Attorney Mark Blum advised the Council against letting businesses advertise on the City’s Web site.  At the meeting, Blum contended that doing so would open the door to a possible legal challenge---he mentioned the First Amendment--- and if there was a legal challenge, the City would lose.   THE CITY WOULD LOSE.  Blum's legal opinion was clearly expressed at the meeting.  

Did the Council heed its own legal counsel?   Uh,no.  Ken Harenda made a motion to direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance allowing advertising space on the City’s official web site www.newberlin.org and it passed 5-2  with  Ald. Harenda, Hopkins, Ament, Wysocki, Seidl  voting yes. Aldermen Moore and Poshepny voted no.    

In 2006, the Council approved a policies resolution  that limited City Hall and the City’s cable channel to units of government. As a result, citizen groups (even the boy scouts) are not permitted the use of City Hall and City cable channel.  The Council's action ended voters forums at City Hall and broadcasting the forums via the City cable channel. Aldermen sought to justify their action by arguing that if you allow one group the use of the facilities, you have to allow all. Their decision was not  to allow any. The resolution passed 4-3 with Ald. Harenda, Hopkins, Ament, and Gallagher voting yes. Ald. Moore, Augustine and Hegeman voted no.

Aldermen Harenda, Hopkins and Ament voted to deny citizen groups, including us taxpaying New Berlin residents, the use of City Hall and City cable channel facilities—even for voters forums—but did not object at the Jan. 12 meeting to the City’s Web site being used by businesses to promote their goods and services?  

 “If you allow one, you have to allow all” conveys equal, fair  treatment, doesn't it?  

If the City “discriminates” and allows some ads but not others on its government Web site, it may risk a lawsuit.

On the other hand,  an official Web site  full of ads for adult bookstores, escort  services, bars (including those featuring exotic dancers), liquor beverages and liquor stores, tobacco products and companies, feminine hygiene products, Viagra, erectile dysfunction medications, condoms, breast implants, abortion clinics, etc. wouldn't exactly enhance the City's image.   And what if the company that wanted to advertise on the Web site  had received multiple consumer complaints, was operating unethically or illegally, or was a local business’ chief competitor? Would it  matter? What about political ads or ads containing religious messages?    

The Journal Sentinel article reported that if the advertising was restricted to local businesses or national chains with stores or restaurants located in New Berlin, it would likely raise only about $7,000 annually for the city.  Ald. John Hopkins is quoted stating, “Obviously, it’s not going to be a huge amount, but we’ll do anything we can to help the city.”  Anything?  Who’s he kidding? When Mayor Chiovatero proposed cutting aldermanic salary by $1000 ($1,000 x 7 aldermen= $7,000) during budget talks, Hopkins and the other aldermen balked at that. They wouldn’t even vote to reduce their generous expense allowance.  

In 2000, New Berlin Public Schools Superintendent James Benfield recommended slashing the District’s technology budget to help pay for the 5-year Facility Capital Improvement Plan he presented.   

Dr. Benfield would not have suggested such a drastic cut if he’d considered technology of great educational value and importance.  

His rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul/cut technology proposal seems remarkably short-sighted.

Benfield’s successor, Superintendent Paul Kreutzer, has been a staunch supporter of technology and has promoted its use. Some examples include the computer podcasts of school board meetings and installation of surveillance cameras at the secondary schools.  

One downside of technology use by kids is that it can be seriously abused.  Certainly, we’ve seen that in New Berlin, such as teens sending nude photos of themselves via phones or computers. And who can forget that an Eisenhower high school student used technology to trick and coerce some of his classmates to perform sexual acts!

Dr. Kreutzer remains optimistic about technology’s potential to benefit students.  

He may have good ideas for implementing/expanding  technology in our schools.

However,  for a different perspective about kids & technology,  read a recent blog by BrookfieldNOW blogger Tom Gehl.  His thought-provoking piece expresses concern about kids’s use and reliance on technology.  It  raises valid points.          

Here’s an excerpt from Gehl’s blog: 

The onset of childhood obesity has been simultaneous to this explosion of technology.  I don't suggest it is the only cause, nor perhaps even the primary one.  But neither do I believe it is coincidence.  When technology begins to limit and stunt the ability of our youth to look outside of themselves, to interact with and engage people and ideas without the use of their contraptions, when they eliminate more wholesome and edifying activities from their routines, when the thought of going for a walk or listening to what Mother Nature has to say as opposed to the latest text message is utterly foreign to them, then this should give us pause. 

Shouldn't our state legislators do their utmost to protect children?

Sen. Mary Lazich’s Conservatively Speaking blog post yesterday (Sunday, January 17) titled Protecting children, refers to child care scams, the Wisconsin Shares program and fraud, reports of child-care centers connections to drug operations.

 It states, “During November, the legislature approved Act 76, which offered some protections to both children and taxpayers by addressing problems in the Wisconsin Shares Child Care program.

Unfortunately, a few key provisions of two bills, authored by Rep. Mark Gundrum, Rep. Mark Honadel, Sen. Alberta Darling and myself were left out of Act 76. These are simple, common sense changes to the law that can only make things better for children, taxpayers, and child care professionals trying to provide a safe needed service.

Therefore, the four of us are introducing two bills that will strengthen safeguards against neglect, abuse, and other criminal activities.

“LRB 4061/1 provisions prohibit a person convicted of a drug-related felony from receiving a license to operate a child care center for at least 10 years after that person has completed his or her sentence. If the person has been convicted of a crime in addition to the drug-related felony, the bill provisions permanently prohibit granting the person a child care license.

LRB 4062/1 provisions require state or local government regulators to report child abuse or neglect upon a reasonable cause to believe that a caregiver or someone living at a child care center has abused or neglected a child, or that such abuse or neglect will occur. The bill also requires a government employee to report to his or her immediate supervisor, and the supervisor to report to the sheriff, reasonable suspicion that a caregiver or someone living at the child care center has engaged in a drug-related offense.”

Sen. Lazich’s blog informs us about those issues/bills. 

But what about Senate Bill 319?   Isn't that bill about protecting children and helping victims of childhood sexual abuse obtain justice?

In case you missed it, there's a letter to the editor in yesterday’s Journal Sentinel (Jan. 17) with the heading Protecting children . It's from  Barbara Blaine, President of Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. 

 In expressing support for  Sen. Bill  319, Blaine writes… “ most victims take decades before they are able to tell about the horrors they experienced when they were raped and sexually assaulted as children. Even though time has past, most predators are still out there and have moved on to a new generation of kids. The Department of Justice estimates that only one in 10 predators gets identified. “

Blaine goes on to say,  “ Let’s go after the 90% who get away with raping kids and expose them so kids today will not be abused by these same predators. Wisconsin can and should do better to protect its youngsters. SB 319 will enable Wisconsin to do just that.”  

A January 12 Journal Sentinel editorial titled Delayed Justice says   “ Senate Bill 319 would repeal the state’s civil statute of limitations in childhood sexual abuse cases involving adults or adult clergy and open a three-year window for victims who had been barred previously from suiing. Currently victims can sue until they reach age 35.   The bill is modeled after laws passed in California and Delaware. Supporters say the California law has resulted in identification of 300 previously unknown sex offenders.”  

Sen. Julie Lassa (one of the bill's supporters) asserts: "By opening the statute of limitations, we will be able to cast a wider net to catch these individuals who sexually prey on children."

So, Sen. Lazich (R- New Berlin,)  do you support Sen. Bill 319 or not?   Do you plan to communicate your views on that bill to constituents via your blog?  

When elected officials become ill or injured  for awhile during their term in office or are deployed to foreign lands to serve their country--- and consequently are absent from meetings-- their constituents tend to be tolerant of it.

But when government bodies deny citizens representation, that is truly intolerable.

The New Berlin Common Council voted unanimously at a January 12 Special Meeting,  to waive Council Rule #34 and put Joe Poshepny back in the 5^th District aldermanic seat for the remainder of his term.   (Rule #34 pertains to the selection process for aldermanic vacancy, including advertising the vacancy)

Well, if that was the right thing to do, it should have been done a long time ago.

The City received Poshepny’s resignation letter back in August. Poshepny’s letter rescinding his resignation was dated August 26. That was four months ago!

Attending the Sept. 22 Committee of the Whole Meeting in a wheelchair, Poshepny explained circumstances and events regarding the resignation and rescission letters.   The Council refused to accept Poshepny’s explanation and declared the seat vacant.   

Poshepny retained an attorney  (James Gatzke) to fight for his seat.

Instead of appointing  Poshepny or someone else, the Council left the seat empty until January 12.

How was that in the best interests of District 5?   (by the way, I live in District 5) 

Remember that Poshepny had been elected by the voters of the Fifth District to a three-year aldermanic term which expires in April 2010.  

The Council’s dithering resulted in aldermen from every district except District 5, being able to participate in the Council’s recent budget discussions, cast votes on the budget/tax levy and the mayor’s veto of the budget.   

For District 5, it was literally taxation without representation.

In a published letter dated January 11, Ald. Ament contends that waiving Council Rule #34 and Poshepny’s appointment to the Council are “not about the Council changing direction under the threat of a lawsuit. It’s about doing the right thing by filling the vacancy with the person that was elected in the 5^th District.”

Uh, huh.    Too bad Ament and his aldermanic colleagues failed to do the “right thing” months ago.

Previous Inside New Berlin blogs related to this topic:

• Sept. 17   What Will They Do Next  
• Sept.30    The Vacancy  
• Oct. 4        ELECTED Representatives and Interim Successors
• Nov. 3       Several Aldermen Opt To Deprive Fifth District of Representation
• Nov. 14    City Council Shuffle & Suit

Comparison data of city executive pay was published last week in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. By city executive, they mean mayor/village president and city administrator/manager. Unlike some other cities, New Berlin does not employ a city administrator. It relies on its mayor to perform those duties.

Among the suburban communities listed, New Berlin’s had the second lowest city executive pay-$83,772. (Greenfield at $73,472 was lowest.) However, Greenfield’s mayor appears to have more generous fringe benefits/expense allowance than New Berlin’s)   According to the chart, the mayor of Greenfield gets full benefits plus $300/month expenses; $200/month mileage. New Berlin’s mayor receives health benefits; no vacation or sick days; $100/month expenses.
Click here to view the Journal Sentinel’s chart of comparison data.

You may recall that in January 2009, the New Berlin Common Council voted to reduce the mayor’s salary from $90,634 to $83,772.   Ald. Ament made the motion. When the Council meeting adjourned, I asked Ald. Ament whether he had ever taken action to reduce aldermanic pay. He replied, “no”.

A New Berlin alderman receives $7000 salary plus $250/month expense allowance (total= $10,000 annually). The Council President receives an additional $600. According to the City Accounting Manager, all of our current aldermen chose the “non-accountable” plan and do not  have to provide the City with receipts, other documentation, or even an explanation for what they did with the money.

The minutes of the September budget talks indicate the mayor presented a $73,847 Common Council budget. He proposed “ reducing aldermanic salaries by $1000 and the expense accounts by $100 while keeping the Council President the same for the expense account due to all the comments that we are all feeling the pain here”. Well, the aldermen did not support that cut in their own pay—not even during these tough economic times. They voted unanimously to increase the Common Council budget to $86,119.

Curious about how a New Berlin alderman’ s pay compares with what other aldermen in the area are getting, I started doing some research. Whew. I discovered that what New Berlin pays an alderman is at the top of the pay scale among area suburbs. Every community I checked, including Greenfield, Franklin, Oak Creek, West Allis, Brookfield, Mequon, Cudahy, Menomonee Falls, Pewaukee, Wauwatosa, Waukesha, paid an alderman less than what New Berlin does. 
Some examples: Wauwatosa alderman get $4,200, no expense allowance. Aldermen in Waukesha are paid an annual salary of $6,500 and have no expense allowance--and they’ve taken action to freeze that compensation amount through the year 2013. Mequon aldermen receive $4,800 annually, no expense account. Franklin aldermen receive $7,200 salary plus $1,800 for mileage/expenses ($9,000). In Brookfield, aldermen get $9,911 annual compensation, no expense allowance.
 

Can New Berlin aldermen realy justify receiving higher taxpayer-funded pay than other aldermen? In this tough economy? Why can’t they pay for expenses out of their $7000 annual part time salaries? And don’t forget that our New Berlin aldermen receive a generous expense allowance without having to furnish receipts to the City/account to taxpayers for how it was spent.
 

This is a follow-up to my August blog entry titled “Alderman Ament’s Antics”.
In June, for “budgetary reasons”, the New Berlin Common Council approved a maximum of four unpaid furlough days for city workers.
At a July meeting, Alderman Ament presented a Requested Action Statement (RAS), which contended that the mayor and aldermen should take the equivalent of furlough days by having each alderman refund $26.96 for a day of furlough and the mayor refund $322.24. Ald. Ament argued that the aldermen and mayor should “share in the sacrifice” being required of city employees.

All four unpaid furlough days were imposed in 2009.
 

I decided to call City Hall this morning to inquire about any voluntary “refunds” aldermen had made to the City in 2009 or 2010.
Here’s what the City Accounting Manager told me:  

• Ron Seidl:  $49.47 on Aug. 14                                                                                                              
• Dave Ament:  $53.92 on Sept. 3  &  $40.47 on Dec. 29 (total=$94.39)
• Ted Wysocki:  $80.00 on Nov. 13

That’s it folks.
That minimal aldermanic participation and comparatively small "refunded" amount is what Ald. Ament calls "sharing in the sacrifice"? 

Heck, city workers lost 4 days pay with the unpaid furloughs. FOUR DAYS !
And months earlier, Ament and his aldermanic cohorts had cut the mayor’s pay from $90,634 to $83,772, a huge decrease.
 

But while our aldermen have acted to reduce other people’s pay significantly, they have been notably reluctant to decrease aldermanic pay in a substantial way such as by eliminating or slashing the aldermanic expense account.
For their part time aldermanic positions, our aldermen are each paid an annual salary of $7,000 and get $250 per month for expenses for an additional $3000 per year. (in other words, they get $10,000 financial compensation annually). And the Council President (Ken Harenda) is paid even more.
By the way, New Berlin School Board members are paid a $3000 salary, which is less than half what an alderman receives, and they don't get an expense account. 

Best wishes for a joyous holiday weekend and wonderful new year.

And in the words of one memorable Christmas song:   

                       Have yourself a merry little Christmas.

                       Let your heart be light.

                       From now on, our troubles will be out of sight....

Paul Lincoln Scheuble died December 17, apparently of septicemia.

I was deeply saddened by that news.

Paul was an extraordinary person and had been so passionately involved in the community, it is difficult to imagine New Berlin without him. 

Whether holding or seeking local public office, speaking up at city or school government meetings, doing charity work or other volunteerism, Paul was an active individual who genuinely cared about others and for our community. 

Paul was an "outside the box" thinker and multi-talented man with a diverse educational/work background.  He earned a bachelor of arts degree in philosophy and psychology. His post-graduate education included theological studies, liberal arts, science, and trade coursework.  In addition to public service and community volunteerism, Paul had wide work and life experience as an educator, coach, musician, music instructor, businessman, manager, handyman.

Paul Lincoln Scheuble was endorsed by We Care New Berlin  last April when he ran for a seat on the New Berlin School Board.

Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council’s Christa Westerberg, an attorney, tells us open records law is about democracy. Citizens have the right to records to better inform themselves about government and ultimately hold it accountable.  The law says providing access to information is “declared to be ….an integral part of the routine duties of officers and employees.” Citizens are entitled to courteous and efficient service. The law also says “custodians of public records must respond as soon as practicable and without delay.” The state attorney general’s office advises that responses should be issued within 10 working days. For simple requests, it should be sooner.         

 I’m a taxpaying citizen who has actively sought information/records from city and school government for over a decade.  I wish I could report that government officials/employees have always been cooperative, courteous and supportive of the public’s right to know or responded in a timely manner, but sadly,  I can’t. The multiple negative experiences would fill a book.                

Speaking of governmental responses and negative experiences:  

An incident occurred at New Berlin West High School in March that created quite a buzz. It seems Superintendent Paul Kreutzer spotted a male student who had his head down on the desk during first hour study hall in the cafeteria.  Displeased, Dr. Kreutzer confronted the boy and asked for his ID. The study hall supervisor, a ten-year NBPS employee, was subsequently confronted and reportedly reduced to tears.

Two academically high- achieving senior girls brought this matter to the general public’s attention via their privilege of the floor speeches at a NB School Board meeting. They expressed dismay and several concerns about what had happened.  One girl referred to the reprimanded student as having “learning disabilities”.  The girls POF speeches can be heard by clicking on the District Website's podcast of the March 9, 2009 BOE meeting. (Look for it listed under the heading 08-09 BOE meetings)

Last summer, I spoke with one of those girls and her parent.   Both clearly believed Dr. Kreutzer’s conduct had been inappropriate.   The parent contended that Dr. Kreutzer exhibited poor management by interfering and failing to follow the “chain of command” and felt Dr. Kreutzer should have spoken to the study hall supervisor and school principal first and let them handle it.  His daughter said Dr. Kreutzer should stop micro-managing and focus instead on hiring good teachers and providing students with more educational opportunities.     

In July, I emailed an information/records request to Superintendent Kreutzer and Asst. Superintendent Joe Garza. In that request, I described what I’d heard regarding the study hall incident, asked if it was accurate and if not what had occurred.  I also referred to New Berlin West ‘s camera surveillance.  

Dr. Kreutzer did not respond.  

I got a written response in the mail from Mr. Garza telling me that I would not be getting the requested information or access to the video recording.  

In his letter, Garza attempted to justify that refusal.  He argued that the video was made in a restricted and private setting.   Oh, really? Is that how he views our public schools, public school cafeteria , and school halls?   He argued that granting me access to the video might compromise the school’s security!   Garza also stated that certain laws likely prevented the district from disclosing records containing personally identifiable information about students without their consent.   

I was not satisfied with the District response and took a 2-page letter that explained why to District Office on Friday, August 28.  For example, I pointed out that nowhere in Garza’s letter did it indicate any attempt had been made to contact the parties involved, much less obtain their consent.  

My letter also mentioned that I was in the process of getting the consent.

That sparked some quick action.  District administrators/officials contacted the boy’s family and met with the boy, his mom, and the stepfather on the following Monday to show them the video and discuss the study hall incident. In a phone conversation I had with the stepfather a day or two later, he told me about the meeting. He also confided that he made District administration aware his wife and stepson had already given me signed consents to view the video and they weren’t rescinding them.   

Indeed, I had consents to view the video from the boy, his mom, and the study hall supervisor.  ( Because the stepfather was not the boy’s legal guardian,  I had not asked him for written consent.)   By the way, the boy was 18 and no longer attending West.  He had graduated in June.

Even after I brought those signed written consents to District Office, District administrators refused to supply the information I’d requested regarding the study hall incident or give me access to the video record.    

To top it off, I received a rude, threatening letter from School Board President John Kegel and VP Dave Maxey.  If they thought such tactics would intimidate or deter me, they’re mistaken.  Someone should explain such important concepts as public service and transparency in government/the public’s right to know,  to those guys. Furthermore, if our Board members and District administrators were frugal with taxpayers’ money, they would not be sending me letters by courier. (A courier told me it cost about $15 to deliver a letter to my house). 

In my subsequent letter, I included this reminder:   Per School Board Policy, the Superintendent, or in his absence the Director of Human Resources/Operations, is the designated legal custodian of records in the school district.   

A student might put his or her head down on a desk in first hour study hall for any number of reasons, including illness.  

If the superintendent expects students to spend their time studying when they are not taking a class, should the District be allowing senior privilege, which enables students to skip their early morning study hall? 

As for enforcing a no-head-down-on-desk rule:  I checked NB West’s student/parent handbook and found it contained several conduct rules but none about kids resting their heads on desks in study hall. I asked the District for a copy of any document that had been provided to study hall supervisors which conveyed that students were not permitted to put their heads down on desks in study hall.  The District failed to provide one, so apparently none existed.   

New Berlin’s annual Christmas parade was cancelled this year due to an apparent lack of interest, money, sponsors.

However, if you want to take the kiddies to see Santa here are two local options:

The City of New Berlin will have its Christmas tree lighting ceremony at 4:30 pm this Saturday, December 5 at the Veterans Memorial located at Casper Drive and National Ave.  This event is sponsored by the New Berlin Lions Club. Children will have an opportunity to visit with Santa & Mrs. Claus at the fire station.

The Education Foundation of New Berlin is sponsoring a pancake breakfast with Santa on Saturday, December 19.  Click here for more information.

New Berlin Alderman Bill Moore explains: 

“ The mayor properly vetoed the 2010 budget after it passed 5-1, with me the only one opposed.  It takes $1,800,000 from surplus, which does two terrible things:

1. It decreases our fund balance, which is necessary to help keep our borrowing interest rates low, so it will cost us more to borrow in the future.  The budget was already balanced and it was not necessary to do this. 

2.  Future tax levies are based on the previous year; this decreases the levy so much that in the year 2011 we will have to drastically cut city services, laying off employees."             

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has already informed us that the mayor had consulted with the city’s financial advisers and based his decision to veto the budget on their report:   

 “Mayor Jack Chiovatero's budget had already called for using $1 million from the fund balance in lieu of taxes to limit the levy increase to 3.59 percent for the 2010 city budget. But aldermen voted to draw an additional $833,000 from reserves for no levy increase.

That additional amount from reserves is simply too much, the mayor wrote in his veto message.

"The action taken by the council will place the city at risk for future budget shortfalls and reduced bond ratings," Chiovatero wrote.

His decision was based, he said, on a report from the city's financial advisers Ehlers & Associates.

The report noted that with "the continuation of the economic downturn and anticipated declines in revenues next year," overusing fund reserves to lower the tax levy "will extend structural deficits into 2011."                     

"Increasing the use of reserves to balance the proposed 2010 budget is not a strategy the city of New Berlin can sustain to pay for ongoing operating expenditures," the Ehlers report says. "Moody's Investors Service opined as recently as August 2009 this practice could place pressure on the city's existing bond rating of Aa1. “

                                                                                                                        ---- (boldface emphasis by me)

Nevertheless, several aldermen will attempt to override the mayor's veto at tonight's  7 pm Special Council Meeting at City Hall.

For its end-of-the-year edition, NOW newspapers is planning to feature stories that tell of people's positive experiences in what has been such a difficult year for most of us. 

The birth of two grandchildren were just  two of the bright spots in this year for me.

I'm sure you can think of something you celebrated, too.

Did you have a positive experience that occurred this year that you'd like to share?

If so, contact :

Mark Maley

NOW Newspapers

Editor in Chief

Phone: (262)  446 6630  

Email: mmaley@cninow.com

New Berlin Public Schools spent mega-millions on New Berlin West renovation and the new Ronald Reagan Elementary School.   Meanwhile, Eisenhower Middle/High School has been limping along with 1969-vintage boilers. 

The NB School Board met last Wednesday (Nov. 18) to discuss Eisenhower's boiler dilemma.   Calling it a "boiler challenge", Superintendent Paul Kreutzer asked the Board to identify a solution for the heating problem at Eisenhower.  Kreutzer explained that the school operates 2 boilers and both are needed to heat the building.  At 40 years old, the boilers are 10 years beyond their expected life.  Kreutzer referred to this as an “acute” need.

Buildings & Grounds Director Bob Pulliam explained that thousands of dollars were being spent annually on maintenance of these old boilers to replace tubes, valves, etc.  During recent maintenance, one of the boilers was found to have 43 cracked tubes inside. The tubes were replaced but there were valve failures and other significant problems with these boilers. 

He also reported that a gas smell at Eisenhower brought gas company and fire department employees to the school.  A suspected gas leak caused both boilers to be red-tagged. The stack coming out of a boiler was found to have a two-inch gaping hole. Also, when attempting to replace the chimney wrap, the chimney was found to have disintegrated into powder, leaving only the insulation.  

The estimated cost to fix one boiler: $30,000-$50,000.  The other boiler could also need substantial and costly repair.  

Dr. Kreutzer recommended that the School Board forgo spending money on repair and buy new boilers instead.  He pressed the School Board to decide now so that Ike boiler replacement could be done during the two-week period of Winter Break . The current boilers would be cut up and taken out. Dr. Kreutzer conveyed that  $350,000 should cover the expense of the mechanical boiler work and the approximately $50,000 needed for asbestos abatement.  

The five School Board members present ( including Art Marquardt who attended by teleconference,) unanimously approved spending $350,000 to replace the boilers at Eisenhower. Board member Joan Doberstein was absent.  Earlier Matt Thomas had left the room after recusing himself from discussion and voting. His explanation for abstaining was that he worked for Johnson Controls, one of the companies bidding on the project.

Interestingly, how to fund this project has not yet been decided.  Roger Dickson, the District’s financial director, told the School Board that administration will bring forth a funding resolution in December.   

 The November 23, 2009 New Berlin School Board meeting has been cancelled. The next meeting will be on December 14.

The Proposed 2010 City Operating Budget is on tonight’s meeting agenda  for discussion and possible action.

And note this interesting latest development in the Council/Aldermanic District #5 seat saga---

District #3 Alderman Ron Seidl has requested the following motion made at the Nov. 10 Common Council Meeting be up for reconsideration:

Motion by Ald. Harenda to direct the City Clerk to advertise for Aldermanic District #5 Vacancy in city’s official newspaper, city’s web site, and city’s cable channel. 

The motion had passed 4-2, with Ald. Harenda, Wysocki, Ament, and Seidl voting in favor of the motion. Ald. Hopkins and Moore voted no.

If Ald. Seidl changes his vote on that motion tonight, a 3-3 tie could result.  A vote cast by Mayor Chiovatero would break a tie.

Also, Ald. Bill Moore requested the following action be added to tonight’s agenda: 

Reinstate Joseph Poshepny as the alderman of District 5. The Council further directs staff to pay Ald. Poshepny any salary unpaid through this date.  

The  7 pm Committee of the Whole Meeting followed by the Common Council Meeting are being held on Thursday, Nov. 19 at City Hall instead of next Tuesday, Nov. 24.

State Rep. Mark Gundrum (R-New Berlin), who was elected to the Assembly in 1998, would rather be a judge.  

A few days ago, Gundrum announced that he is running for Waukesha County circuit court judge in the upcoming April election against incumbent Judge Richard Congdon. (Congdon had been appointed to the bench by Gov. Doyle in January to fill a vacancy created by Judge Mark Gempeler’s retirement. )

According to the Milwaukee Journal  Sentinel :

“I think the seat can be won,” Gundrum said

He said he would be a judge who would follow the rule of law and not impose his own views.

However, in the very next paragraph:  

“ I think it would be good to have a person with a solid conservative view of the law in there,” Gundrum said.

Uh, that sounds like politician double-speak.

Nevertheless, Gundrum is quite popular and has a very good chance of unseating the incumbent judge.

And it raises the question--- if Gundrum succeeds, who will seek his Assembly seat?  

On September 22:  Joe Poshepny, who had been ill, got a  less than warm welcome form his fellow aldermen at this City Council public meeting.  In fact, Ald. Ament remarked that he had not expected Poshepny to be wheeled in there and called it highly irregular!  After hearing Poshepny’s recitation of circumstances and events regarding the August letters of resignation and rescission, City Attorney Mark Blum advised the aldermen to give Poshepny’s explanation thought before making their decision.  If the aldermen accepted Poshepny’s explanation, no District 5 aldermanic vacancy existed. It’s doubtful the City Attorney would have voiced such an option if he thought it inappropriate or illegal in this case. In any case, a few minutes later, the Council rendered a decision: It voted 5-1 to advertise the vacancy.   

On October 13:  The Council went into closed session to discuss a letter from Poshepny’s attorney James Gatzke.   When it returned to open session, the Council voted to “table” advertising the vacancy.  

On October 27:  Ald. Bill Moore’s motion to reinstate Poshepny as Fifth District Alderman failed for lack of a second. Ald. Moore made a motion to remove advertising the vacancy from the “table” (so the Council could discuss, vote on that issue).  His motion failed for lack of a second.

On Nov. 10:  Ald. Harenda made a motion to remove advertising the vacancy from the “table” (the same motion Ald. Moore made on Oct. 27)  Ald. Moore seconded it. Guess what? The motion passed unanimously.  

What are we to make of such a remarkable change from the aldermen’s previous actions at the Oct. 27 meeting?  Since no explanation was offered for it, are we to conclude Aldermen Harenda, Wysocki, Ament, Seidl and Hopkins weigh whether to discuss important agenda topics or not based on who makes the motion? 

Is this Council so biased and dysfunctional that it stoops to playing favorites, stonewalling, and petty political games?   If not, why did the same aldermen who were uninterested in removing the item from the table for discussion/action on Oct. 27 take the opposite stance, without discussion, on Nov. 10? One Council meeting they were united in their lack of support for the motion and the next meeting, all for it.   I hope that during the 2-week period between those meetings, the aldermen refrained from discussing the District 5 aldermanic vacancy issue with each other (outside of posted government meetings, of course) because behind-the-scenes discussion/collusion is a practice that could run afoul of Open Meetings Laws. 

On Nov. 10, the City Council voted 4-2 to seek applicants for Poshepny’s seat. Whew. The Council has swung back and forth between action and inaction like a yo-yo.    

District 5 voters had elected Poshepny to a 3-year term which expires in 2010.  Poshepny clearly wants to retain his seat and be our representative.  How did it serve District 5 residents/voters not to let him?

On Nov. 12, Poshepny filed a lawsuit in Waukesha Circuit Court to regain his seat. 

Well, New Berlin’s aldermen were unable to resolve their dispute satisfactorily.  So, now it’s up to the Courts. This is not a happy situation whatever the outcome of the suit.            

New Berlin has been on the losing end of far too many costly legal battles.