Current City Council Actions

DISTRICT EIGHT CITY OF GREEN BAY

Current City Council Actions

Recent City Council Actions:

City wide Referendum

**JULY 08**Efforts to put a budget question to the voters has failed at council. Due to state imposed budget caps cannot raise taxes over a set amount without a referendum. I, along with 4 other aldermen, felt that the citizens should have a voice on this matter. As a council we are powerless and cannot go above the cap, only the citizens on a referendum can grant this power. I guess the majority of council is willing to risk the reduced fire coverage and claim they were making the 'tough' decisions. If the referendum passed we preserve FIRE protection for at least a year and look for options. If it failed we go back to the unions and say this is what the voters are directing.... let's negotiate more creative contracts that preserve fire safety and yet don't cost tax payers an arm and a leg.

Nativity Display--

Here is the letter I wrote to Mayor Schmitt:

Honorable Mayor Schmitt:

As Vice President of the Green Bay City Council, on behalf of the six council people who voted to remove displays from city hall, and most importantly on behalf of those who feel Christmas is NO TIME to wage legal or political battles, I am urging you to reconsider your decision. Please take down the display.

As leaders we must make rational decisions, not emotional ones. This debate has shown all of us we have a community built on great faith. This faith will continue regardless of whether or not we have a display at city hall. Help restore Peace, Joy and Goodwill to this Christmas season.

As a community we will have many months to examine this issue and decide whether we want a display next year, where and what it would entail, and what the legal ramifications may be well in advance.

I am hopeful in the spirit of the season, should the display be removed, that all talk of lawsuits will end. Neither side wants to divide our community.

I appreciate your time and attention on this matter.

Alderman Christopher Wery

This was very simply an issue of our Police Chief looking to gain control over his department. He made his case to the council by stating the k-9 program is a great program with a horrible contract. He would love to DOUBLE the number of k-9's. However, under the current contract a k-9 officer picks and chooses his days off and what calls he will respond to. Our 2 officers each worked approximately 119 days a year. That left a 'hole' of 1/3 of the year without a dog anyway that the county responded to. They worked 4 days on and 4 days off as opposed to normal patrol officers who work 5 days on and 3 days off. Our chief asked the union SEVERAL times to renegotiate the contract so that MORE dogs could be added. They said no every time!!

***It is my belief the union felt they could say no, believing the pressure would be too great for our council to actually cut the k-9's. They were wrong. I am proud of our council and chief for trying to more with less and ashamed of the union for not even attempting to help out. President Fradette and myself challenged the union on budget night to go in the mayor's office with the chief and work out a deal... we would wait all night for them if necessary. They refused again. ***This has nothing to do with our brave police officers and everything to do with a brazen union that challenges the chief at every step. I fully believe someday we will have the k-9's back under a more manageable contract. It is not easy sometimes to make the difficult decisions. Please realize there is always a reason behind them. If you have more questions, please call me or call the Police Chief for more details. For now the county will still continue to cover with their dogs as they did 1/3 of the time last year anyway. **Update-- negotiations continue and the sticking point seems to be over minor details that I am hoping both sides can compromise on for the good of the community. C'mon guys, enough already...get this done!

Green Bay West H.S. Practice Field

I requested and received city funding to match the school district's funds and a KABOOM grant to create a much needed quality practice field. This field will be used by the many West athletes and a few west side 5th-8th grade football teams as well! Great job Coach Witek for spearheading this effort!!

Sex Offender Ordinance:

Obviously this is a difficult issue with no easy answers. However, I was elected to tackle, not hide, from these issues.

FACT: 87% of registered Sex Offenders live in Green Bay

FACT: 428 out of 489 Sex offenders live in Green Bay

FACT: Green Bay has 45% of the county's population

Do you see the disparity? Why does Green Bay, who has less than half the population of the county, get almost 90% of the Sex Offenders? Disgusting.

At a city council meeting, I asked the Dept of Corrections if offenders are placed back in the CITY they lived in or the COMMUNITY (county) they lived in after their jail time. He stated they are placed in the COMMUNITY. It is much more convenient for them to dump the offenders in Green Bay under these guidelines. It sounds like their guidelines need to changed????

On November 1, 2005 the city council passed a resolution asking the state to help distribute the offenders more equitably. NO RESPONSE.

On February 22, 2006 the city council passed a resolution asking the state to electronically monitor violent and child sex offenders for life. This is still being debated.

The state has shown no interest in helping the citizens of Green Bay with this issue. We have been told to work with the surrounding areas. What representative from Ashwaubenon, Allouez, Howard, Bellevue etc etc is going to voluntarily agree to take MORE offenders when they currently share only 61 sex offenders amongst the rest of the county. The answer is simple, the have NO interest. Thus, we are pushing the envelope by not taking any more and forcing the state to address this issue. By action alone will we get some movement on this topic.

Our ordinance is unique from those around the country:

1) Does not affect those currently living in Green Bay. Some cities make ALL offenders immediately move out-- thus the increase in offenders going underground.

2) An offender has a possibility of moving 'back home' with certain relatives and thus may keep their 'support' network that is touted as being vital.

3) We have an appeal process for those who feel they are not a threat. If an 18 year old had sex with his 16 year old girlfriend and was turned in he could very well carry the label of sex offender for life. This "Romeo and Juliet" type of offender is not who we are targeting. I am sure their appeal would be granted. The appeals board will be made up of professionals and if they feel an individual is not a threat they can live within the restricted area.

This ordinance will prevent Child Rapists, Violent Offenders and Repeat Offenders from living 2000 ft from a school, licensed day care, park, trail, playground, place of worship or any place children are known to congregate.

I firmly believe that even if we stop ONE child or woman from being raped because of this ordinance it outweighs any 'inconvenience' to the rapist coming out of jail.

Pawn Shop/2nd Hand Dealer Ordinance changes:

At the request of Lieautenant Mike Nick...this initiative is aimed at improving our recovery rate for stolen items. By creating a data base of all items purchased the Police Dept can more easily match items reported stolen to those sold at a Pawn Shop/2nd Hand Dealer. This is only a first step. The ultimate goal will be for all of Brown County to be linked together in the same system. The average citizen will not see any changes. The business owner, however, will be required to electronically transmit all transactions every day instead of filling out reams of paperwork that is not always easy to decipher and handing it in to the PD days/weeks later.

Grocery Store Liquor license changes:

At my request the city council changed the requirement for a separate entrance. Now, shoppers buying their groceries can also buy wine/spirits without having to go back to their car to drop off their groceries and then go into a separate entrance. Over 90% of Wisconsin cities do not require a separate entrance.

1) I believe the restrictions we put in place will still make it very difficult for minors to purchase alcohol. There must be a separate section that is closed off at night and is monitored by a video camera 24/7.

2) Convenience for shoppers. Grocery stores have had numerous requests for this over the years.

'Web-enabling' city inspections reports and municipal court records:

I have asked the city council to look into moving our record keeping system into the 21st century. There is no reason this information cannot be accessible instantly. These are all records that are available to the general public anyway....why not make them easy to access?

Humane Officer Interns :

At our Humane Officer's request I asked council to add some interns to help her. This way regular officers do not have to respond to every animal call when she is off-duty. They have more urgent calls to attend to and are not as trained to handle animal issues as the humane officer or her interns.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

Due to the inability of the federal government to enforce its own laws, illegal immigrants have flooded our great country. Employers across the nation have made hiring illegals commonplace. It’s time for local leaders of all cities to act.

Critics proclaim this ordinance is do-nothing, racist, a federal issue, unenforceable, will damage our image, subject to lawsuits and is being addressed by Congress. They are wrong and here’s why:

Opponents claim that this initiative is ‘do-nothing’ legislation. Three points easily counter this paltry argument. By including a requirement in all city licenses that businesses will not hire illegals we are legally empowered to revoke their license privileges. Even more powerful is the perception Green Bay will gain. Illegals will know they are not welcome and will not be drawn to Green Bay if there are less jobs for them. Lastly, we can create change at the top by shaking the base of the governmental tree. If enough cities act we literally force our federal officials to respond.

This ordinance is not a racist proposal punishing one class of people. It’s a proposal to punish businesses that employ illegals and discourage illegals from locating here, regardless of ethnicity. We have never mentioned race during committee deliberations. Those making racially related remarks are those in opposition. Furthermore, this is not a divisive issue. How can it be when the vast majority supports our initiative?

An oft-repeated mantra by nay-sayers is that it’s a federal issue. Is it a federal issue when local law enforcement must deal with MS-13 & 18th Street gangs and other hardened criminals who sneak across the border in search of anything but a respectable life? Who pays for enforcement, criminal defense and subsequent jail time? Who pays for illegals, who are mostly un-insured, and use local hospitals yet cannot pay? What about the cost of illegals driving without a license or insurance? What about school districts funding the increasing expenses of educating a rising illegal population? Illegals, who are generally underpaid, utilize local non-profit sources for food, housing and other support. Finally, is it a federal issue when medically unscreened illegals enter the country carrying communicable diseases such as tuberculosis, leprosy or typhoid fever? With only a cursory glance we see a very local issue.

We’re not proposing to enforce federal immigration law. We’re attempting to stop businesses from employing illegals. Enforcement of this ordinance will be difficult in the beginning, however the city can enter into the Immigration Customs Enforcement 287G training program. We will encourage the county to expand its application of the 287G program to include our police department. The GBPD will utilize deportation schedules, federal determinations and the authority that will be granted by ICE to enforce this ordinance.

Will this proposal discourage companies from relocating here or dampen efforts to attract talented and diverse staff, and executives? No. Hiring illegals is violation of federal law, soon local law, and doesn’t help portray a progressive image or create an attractive environment for companies and executives.

Millions of illegals live here in defiance of our laws and an entitlement mentality is taking hold. “We are here, therefore we are entitled to the rights and privileges of citizens without possessing legal status.” Attempts to rectify this situation are met by threats of lawsuits from the ACLU, MALDEF and others. We are confidant that our ordinance will be upheld in court.

There has been public opposition from local scholars and clergy. The arguments center around a theme of compassion. In America we still struggle with assisting our own poor and disadvantaged. Millions of illegals invading our country impedes our ability to raise standards of living for legal residents. Compassion must begin at home. People who have lived and worked here their entire lives struggle to obtain assistance they need.

We have been hearing Congress will supposedly fix this situation “once and for all”. Federal legislation could make our ordinance ineffective, however does anyone believe that Congress will allow businesses to employ illegals or make concerted efforts to enforce the law? The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act was supposed to solve the problem “once and for all”, does this sound familiar?

What kind of leadership would you rather have for your city; those that bury their heads in the sand or those that take Green Bay to the forefront of tough issues? It takes courage to stand up for what is right and address problems no one else dares to, especially those that directly affect our beloved city.