In June 2003, the New Berlin School Board voted to ban candidate forums/political speech in District facilities.  People protested that action in Privilege of the Floor speeches, letters, editorials, etc. but to no avail. A citizen (Bill Moore) filed a formal complaint with the School District about the facility use policy change. I was the second resident to file a complaint and request a board hearing on the issue.   I submitted my complaint in September 2003 but did not get a board hearing until January 2004. And then, the School Board chose to hold its hearing regarding my complaint on a Friday morning at 7 a.m. which was in violation of School Board policy.  About an hour or so after the hearing began, the School Board abruptly adjourned the meeting (probably to allow the board members who were employed to go to their jobs). The School Board indicated it would resume the hearing at a future time and I was given a tentative hearing date. When the School Board neglected to contact me to confirm that hearing date  or notify me of the time and location of the hearing, I called the District office the day before the meeting to obtain the information.  Eventually, I got fed up with the District/School Board’s stalling and other antics and joined several District residents, who with the help of the ACLU, took legal action against the New Berlin School District.  Just before the District had to respond to the suit, the School Board rescinded its contentious facility use policy provisions.

In 2006, four New Berlin aldermen (a majority) voted in favor of a policy that restricts City Hall and City cable channel use to government units. Since candidate forums had traditionally been sponsored by citizen groups, the Council’s action resulted in candidate forums no longer being held at City Hall.

At the February 9, 2010 Committee of the Whole Meeting, Ald. Moore made a motion to allow public forums in the City Hall Council Chambers, but the Council sent the issue to the Communications Committee for review.  So, what did the Communications Committee do? The  Communications Committee voted to table the matter at their subsequent Feb. 17 meeting. The March 17 Communications Committee meeting has been cancelled and none has been re- scheduled for this month.

An aldermanic candidate forum is set for March 27 at New Berlin West School.  

Needless to say, I consider that quite ironic.

The aldermen who participate in that forum should thank the civic-minded New Berlin Rotary Club for sponsoring the event.  Additionally, those aldermen should thank the eleven community residents who stood up for their rights, filed a federal lawsuit, and succeeded in getting the New Berlin School Board to drop its atrocious policy in 2004---because without those folks, there would be no voters forum at  New Berlin West.        

Time is running out to take the District of New Berlin’s community-wide survey.  The survey is available now and will remain open until March 5^th, according to the District’s winter newsletter mailed to district taxpayer addresses.  To participate:   go to the website www.survey2000.com. and enter the access number you’ll find on the back page of the newsletter, then take the survey.  (For people without internet access, a copy of the survey could be obtained at the schools or District office)

The survey did not have unanimous support from the New Berlin School Board.

In October, the New Berlin School Board voted 5-2  to engage an independent firm called School Perceptions for the 2010 calendar year  to work with the District on the survey project at a maximum cost of $15,000, not including postage. (Matt Thomas and Susan Manley cast the no votes)

In December, the New Berlin School Board discussed the community survey and approved it with some changes, by a  5-2 vote with Matt Thomas and Susan Manley casting the dissenting votes.

During board discussion, Matt Thomas raised many objections:

Complaining that the survey was not a “random sample”, Thomas questioned its validity. He argued that a random sample would be more representative of the whole. 

Thomas made it clear he didn't care for the survey’s self-selective method of garnering opinions. He said the response rate could vary. Thomas told the Board, “Let’s not kid ourselves or pretend that this (survey) is scientifically valid.”  

He contended the survey was unnecessary to get input/ascertain public perceptions because the District already had effective District-community communication:  He referred to the election of school board members, District web site, Privilege of the Floor at meetings, District newsletter, emails, phone calls and letters from constituents, and Dr Kreutzer’s “financial road show”.     

Thomas also argued that money could be better spent elsewhere.  He said that  money spent on some prior surveys was not worth the result they'd gotten.  He labeled this survey a “want” rather than a “need” and argued that the District had some needs that weren’t being funded.

At the Oct. Board Meeting, a representative from School Perceptions maintained  that the self-selective type survey that the District was considering (as opposed to doing a random sample) sends the message that “Everyone’s voice is important, we want to hear from everyone.” 

Everyone?  That sounds good. But in reality, the  District intentionally sent out newsletters that contain only one access code to each taxed household/business establishment in the District.  That access code can be used only once. If more than one person resides at the address, that’s too bad because this process allows only one survey to be taken per taxed household.  Furthermore, the survey did not go to parents whose children attend NBPS by Open Enrollment.  Aren’t their voices important?   If the goal is improvement and the survey a means to get feedback, why exclude them?           

We saw with the horrific Stancl case that technology can be misused or abused in different ways.*

Recently, we were informed  that NBPS high school students may soon be furnished with laptop computers or similar devices to take home with them.  

Sure, such devices may be helpful teaching tools. 

Of course, they are not inexpensive.

Hopefully, troubling and problematic situations like the following won’t occur here: 

   See this CNN news article-----  

               "FBI investigates allegations webcam used to monitor student" 

    And take a look at this news story reported on Huffington Post----

              "School Administrator Boasts about Spying On Students Using Laptop Webcams"

By the way,  if the New Berlin School District opts to provide its students with an Apple computer product, be advised that Apple admits to using child labor in its factories to build computers (and there are other  concerns, too )  See this report.

 *Tony Stancl is the  New Berlin Eisenhower student accused of using the internet site Facebook to trick numerous male classmates into sending him nude photos—and then blackmailing some of those students into performing sex acts. Stancl initially was charged with 12 felonies, including sexual assault of a child, possession of child pornography, child enticement and causing a bomb scare.  As part of a plea agreement, Stancl pleaded no contest to two felonies (concerning sexual assault of a child) and was sentenced on Feb. 24 to 15 years in prison and 13 years of extended supervision.  

Anthony Stancl was sentenced today to 15 years in prison and another 13 years of extended supervision.

Stancl is the New Berlin Eisenhower student  accused of making a bomb threat and using Facebook to dupe male classmates into sending him nude photos of themselves and then coercing some of them to perform sexual acts.

The Journal Sentinel reports:

Before the sentence was imposed, Stancl apologized to the victims and their families, the New Berlin School District, and his own family, especially a brother and sister who continued to attend New Berlin Schools and faced what Stancl called a hostile environment. 

 "I put you through a terrible situation," he said."

Stancl was initially charged with a dozen felonies. As part of a plea agreement, 10 of the charges were dismissed, but considered in sentencing. 

The case received local and national media attention.

The Journal Sentinel also tells us that District Attorney Brad Schimel wasn't sure that "this case with all its publicity, was getting through to kids because new cases of sexting have continued to occur". 

POOOF it’s gone!  Ralph Heun’s NBCRG blog entry “NBCRG sets the Record Straight” has vanished!

I emailed the NOW editor today to inquire about the mysterious disappearance and was informed it was not a glitch. Heun had taken his blog post down.   Because Heun deleted “NBCRG sets the Record Straight”, you won’t find it with other past postings that are listed on his NOW site.  

For the record:   Heun posted “NBCRG sets the Record Straight” on Friday, Feb. 19.  I posted “Setting the Record Straight—Part I”  in the early morning hours of Feb 20.  Heun deleted his blog post afterward.  

Fortunately, I had the foresight to print out a copy of Heun’s post.      

“NBCRG sets the Record Straight” states:

“NBCRG did not seek out Don Counsel for Alderman in the 5^th District. We supported him after we interviewed all other candidates.”

Maybe so.  But I recall that when NBCRG’s web site was functional, it claimed NBCRG was formed in 2002 and has “recruited and supported candidates for public office in every year of its existence.” I mentioned it in one of my past blog posts.   By the way, that blog entry also describes how a NBCRG member tried to bar my entrance to NBCRG's meeting to interview SB candidates Marc Duff, Greg Schoepke and Brent Chipman  in 2004, claiming it was private, but fortunately, I had the foresight  to print out & take with me, a copy of NBCRG's Web page announcing that the public was welcome to attend their interview session.   

“NBCRG sets the Record Straight” states:

“NBCRG withdrew support for Don Counsel in the 5^th District alderman race after he withdrew from the race. We first knew about the withdrawal when it appeared in the paper. There was no further need to support a person who was no longer a candidate.”

Wow.  So, NBCRG wanted it made clear that it was not Counsell’s conduct between the Feb primary and April elections in 2007 –the pub brawl incident, being tazered twice, charged with assault –that caused NBCRG to withdraw its endorsement/support.  Nor was it the negative press including Counsell's mug shot spashed all over  the local news--- that caused NBCRG to withdraw its support. No sirreee.  It was because Counsell subsequently withdrew as a candidate, that NBCRG withdrew its support!!!!  

So, we are to conclude that if Counsell had not withdrawn from the race, NBCRG would have continued to support him, spending time and money to help get him elected the 5^th District alderman?!!!!   Oh, my. 

“ NBCRG sets the Record Straight”  goes on to say:

"We condemn the comments against Tim Cramer and others as inflammatory and possibly libelous.”

It did not specify whom it means by “others”.

And yet, not a word condemning the behavior exhibited by Counsell in 2007.  The  bar brawl, a man so out of control he had to be tazered twice, the physical violence/assault,  and tax dollars being used to arrest, detain, and prosecute him, that is no big deal to NBCRG, huh?  

Given NBCRG’s newly expressed disdain for “inflammatory” and possibly libelous comments made against former School Board member Tim Cramer, perhaps I should remind them  that I am also a  former School Board member--- and that attorneys I'd consulted advised me  that various “inflammatory” comments and allegations made against me not long ago by School Board members Keith Heun and Matt Thomas were libelous and actionable.   

The NOW blogs initially had no comment section for interaction by blog readers. The comment feature was added later. NOW’s current blogging program does not allow us bloggers to edit or delete comments. Anyone objecting to a posted comment should contact the NOW editor.  

Some particularly nasty, incendiary, and possibly libelous comments against Paul Gallagher were posted anonymously on my previous blog.  Since the most objectionable seem to have disappeared, I suspect the editor removed those after someone (perhaps Gallagher) protested.   

I’ve been the target of plenty of personal attacks. For example, after I mentioned that I am a Christian and nurse, a commenter opted to post several comments mocking me about it.         

New Berlin School Board member Matt Thomas was the first New Berlin NOW blogger.  Not long afterward, I became a NOW blogger. Thomas could have used his blog to communicate positive things about the school district. Instead, he often used his blog to criticize and malign constituents.    

Speaking of attacking constituents, School Board members Thomas and Keith Heun misled people and tried to smear me via New Berlin NOW.  On Thomas’ blog, Keith Heun even misrepresented a lawsuit which had been brought against the School District, and the subsequent settlement agreement.  After I posted a comment on my blog about having consulted lawyers who’d advised the disinformation and attacks against me were  libelous and actionable, Keith Heun quickly posted a retraction on Thomas’ blog.  Thomas abruptly deleted his past blog posts and comments posted on them. He soon ended his blog.   

During consultation with attorneys, I was asked if my community’s officials often attacked  or otherwise tried to intimidate constituents who raised concerns, because it could be construed as a civil rights violation—an attempt to retain power by quashing dissent.   I suppose that holds true whether a public official makes his/her attacks openly or anonymously.

An anonymous commenter could be anyone, including an elected official or government employee.

Some persons apparently believe they can maliciously attack citizens anonymously and lie without consequences. But in the event of legal action or court order, they could be quite mistaken.  

In today’s New Berlin primary election, District 1 voters will cast their ballots at Hickory Grove Center, 2600 S. Sunny Slope Road, for 2 at-large seats on the Elmbrook School Board. There are 6 candidates. In alphabetical order, they are: Warren Groff, Beth Horneffer, Genevieve Schmidt, Sandra Schultz, Kathryn Wilson, and (incumbent) Robert Ziegler.  The top four vote-getters will go on to the April general election.

District 5 voters will go to Eisenhower High School, 4333 S. Sunny Slope Road, to cast their ballots for alderman. Candidates on the ballot are Jacob Krueger, Deena Liska, and (incumbent) Joseph Poshepny.  The top two vote-getters will advance to the April 6 general election.

Earlier this month, Poshepny announced his withdrawal from the race for health reasons. He has had serious medical problems and  wants to concentrate on his rehabilitiation.

Of course, Poshepny is not the only candidate to ever withdraw from a race.

Indeed, in  2007  (between the  Feb. primary and April election), 5th District aldermanic candidate Don Counsell  announced his withdrawal from the race after getting into a pub brawl/ being arrested for battery. New Berlin Citizens for Responsible Government (NBCRG) filed paperwork with the City Clerk on Feb. 12, 2007 expressing its support for Counsell and 3rd District aldermanic candidate Ron Seidl.  NBCRG later withdrew its endorsement of Counsell. 

 In 2007, there were large Vote for Counsell signs on display at various New Berlin locations. Those signs carried an authorized and paid for by Vern Bentley disclaimer on them.   

Speaking of changing one's mind, NBCRG had endorsed Roger Hegeman when he initially ran for 5th District alderman. But when Hegeman ran for re-election in 2007, NBCRG  opted to endorse Counsell. 

Joe Poshepny, who had been eliminated in the 2007 Primary, subsequently launched a write-in campaign and received the most votes for 5th District alderman  in the April 2007 general election.  

A recent NOW newspaper headline states Prospect Hill Elementary may be razed.  The reason cited:  fixing the deteriorating building was just too costly, according to officials.   “Leaks in the roof, the need to get asbestos out of the building and other issues have put rehabilitation in the five-to-six figure range, Superintendent Paul Kreutzer said."        

That Jan. 28 news article also reports that on Monday (January 25), School Board members directed Dr. Kreutzer to seek bids for the demolition of the Prospect Hill Elementary building. Also, on Monday, the School Board terminated the District’s lease agreement with Living Word Church as of April 30. That church had been renting space in the building for years—even before the building’s closure as a public school.   Dr. Kreutzer indicated that because of the leaks and abatement issues, the building should not be occupied at this time.

Prospect Hill Elementary was once a district asset but has been allowed to deteriorate to the extent that it is now unfit for human occupancy?  The school’s roof has had a problem with leakage for many years, including while NBPS students were attending the school.  The district has been trying to sell Prospect Hill since it closed, without success.  And now the building is in such a sorry state that leasing it to raise revenue, no longer appears to be a district option?

Sheesh.   

Do you remember that in 2000, New Berlin School Board members John Burke, Matt Thomas and candidate Michael Gratz helped torpedo the $39 million referendum the school district had on the ballot that was meant to address the facility needs of all its schools? That trio publicly declared the referendum was unnecessary because they had a “plan” to take care of the district’s facility needs within the budget and through creation of an educational foundation.

What a joke.

About a year later, after being  unable to come up with sufficient funds, the School Board approved a referendum to build the new Elmwood School. The educational foundation was created and helps fund stuff like smart boards for classrooms-- not expensive facility repair and renovation. 

 The District took on mega-millions in long-term debt to pour money into New Berlin West’s renovation (including building a spiffy field house) and to build the mammoth Reagan Elementary School.  New Berlin Center Elementary was razed and land adjacent to it was purchased by the school district for the Reagan School. NBPS sold off some of its assets.  It sold the old Elmwood property to a developer. Calhoun Elementary was sold to World Harvest Church.

At a 2007 School Board meeting, Superintendent Kreutzer presented a list of “dire” facility needs requiring immediate attention, including unsafe conditions at Orchard Lane that had not been budgeted for.

Dr. Kreutzer has also spoken of Eisenhower School needing over $40 million in upgrades.

We learned a few months ago that Eisenhower had been limping along with 40- year old boilers described as an "acute" need, the boilers cost too much to keep fixing and needed replacing now.  

NBPS  is finally doing something about New Berlin West’s failing treatment plant. NOW reported that the district was under pressure. It had been operating with an expired pollution discharge permit.  The District superintendent has actively pursued getting West hooked up to City sewer as a lower cost alternative to building/maintaining a treatment plant.  Of course, District officials knew many, many years ago the treatment plant wouldn’t last forever and something would need to be done about it.  

 What kind of landlord was NBPS that it leased Prospect Hill Elementary, a school it opted to close and one with a leaky roof, asbestos abatement issues and other costly repair needs, to a church all these years?  

And don’t forget the Wisconsin Air Academy debacle. Jeff Starke reportedly tried to buy Prospect Hill Elementary for a private military school that he planned to run as a co-ed boarding school.  According to Journal Sentinel news reports, his efforts to buy the school were unsuccessful and he entered into a lease agreement. The school opened for a few months, then closed. Evidently, Wisconsin Air Academy couldn’t afford the upgrades necessary to pass the city’s fire code/obtain the required occupancy permit.  There have been additional related news articles.                

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.