|
Today's Concerns
A Franklin resident for over 10 years, Greg has always had a keen interest in local happenings and news. Today's Concerns looks at various topics and concerns for Franklin residents presently and in the years to come.
By Greg Kowalski
Friday, May 16 2008, 02:20 PM
The House of Correction's water tower stands tall and oversees plenty of residential neighborhoods and subdivisions in Franklin. Its close proximity to homes raise plenty of concerns with residents, who put safety first for their families. The last thing any of us want to see is criminals breaking out and roaming our streets.
Today's news from the House of Correction is not good. Even though Milwaukee County has known about the problem(s) for months, and the issue(s) receives plenty of media coverage, it still looks like nothing's being done to solve anything.
I don't want to hear about staffing problems, terrible treatment of workers, and lack of rest from a stressful job at a location where criminals are locked up. It's simply unacceptable that families in Franklin have to continue pressuring the County to bring up standards at the House of Correction. Ripple effects begin to happen when things aren't being kept up to high standards.
This better change, and soon.  
|
By Greg Kowalski
Friday, May 16 2008, 06:30 AM
If we take the Boomgaard Brotherhood at face value, and in fact no vote was taken, then it's obvious that mistruths were told by some officials. So who do you believe?
When the story first broke, I demanded answers. I sent City Clerk Sandi Wesolowski an e-mail regarding closed session votes. I also sent an e-mail to Mayor Tom Taylor regarding this as well. Thanks to these e-mails, both sent them onward to City Attorney Jesse Wesolowski, who called me on my cell phone to explain the reasoning of the closed session vote.
To continue my supporting material, Mayor Tom Taylor told me during my coffee break discussion with him days after it was announced, that the prior Franklin Common Council voted on the name.
So here are my questions:
It is ridiculous, to say the least. From what I'm reading, certain members of the Brotherhood are jumping ship to save their butts, and others are working to bail them out of a mess. In the process of jumping and bailing, they have to slam, smear, and attack the bloggers who are supporting the public. This is because most bloggers agree with the public that the name is stupid and some things weren't adding up.
What has occurred recently is unacceptable, and either way these elected officials are caught in the mud that they created. Now they look even more incredibly stupid, because they're stuck pointing fingers and accusing each other of telling mistruths. These mistruths partially occurred because of quickly made excuses and faulty political tactics.
I'm done with this nonsense by the Boomgaard Brotherhood. The interesting fact of this is the officials bloggers put in the Brotherhood. They also were members of the group known as Franklin Citizens for Responsible Leadership before it disbanded in April.
|
By Greg Kowalski
Thursday, May 15 2008, 04:01 PM
From the Daily Reporter:
Facing an accusation that the Waukesha Water Utility is too secretive, Dan Duchniak said disclosing some details would ruin plans to find a new water source for the area.
The public knows the utility will either try to get water from Lake Michigan or tap wells in western Waukesha and Jefferson counties, said Duchniak, the utility's general manager. But property owners would jack up the price of their land if they knew which sites the utility is eyeing for wells or what path the utility would choose for pipes going to and from Lake Michigan, he said.
"I think the public is aware of the issues related to how we're looking at Great Lakes water, and we're looking at a return component, and there would be a water supplier to go with that," Duchniak said. "Each of those are a different components of the future water supply, and a critical piece is a map for us that identifies the potential parcels for us developing out west. We would want to keep that confidential."
Jim Bouman, a Waukesha resident, filed a complaint (PDF) with the county district attorney last week alleging the water utility's commission is violating open-meeting statutes when it goes into closed session to discuss planning for a new water source. He said he has no problem with taking Lake Michigan water, but he wants more details before planning is so far along it can't be changed.
"I want to know what it's going to cost," he said. "I want to see the engineering estimates of the gain we're going to get versus doing other things."
Duchniak said the commission didn't violate open-meeting rules and only went into closed session when city attorneys recommended it. The commission went into closed session to discuss new water sources nine times (PDF) between 2005 and 2007, but it hasn't done it in 2008.
On top of the open-meetings complaint, Bouman accused (PDF) the commission of being "too small, too clubby." He noted Daniel Warren, commission president, has been on the five-person commission for 20 years.
Bauman is a fellow blogger, with the blog "Water Blogged in Waukesha" Jim writes to us this:
My theory is that they have persuaded themselves that since they are likely to be embroiled in lawsuits, both as plaintiff and respondent, that they can discuss any and all matters that might be remotely related to those lawsuits under cover of the exemption to the Open Meetings Law that permits, in limited instances, discussion of LEGAL STRATEGY with a lawyer in closed session. In light of Buswell, they appear to this citizen to be way over the line on "reasonableness" as articulated by the Wisconsin Supreme Court last year.
And, so, I have filed this complaint and details of what I see as violating the spirit and the letter of the law, with the district attorney of Waukesha County.
I have filed this Open Meetings complaint with the District Attorney of Waukesha County. It is a citizen's effort, without professional help. But, I believe I have hit the critical issues. This is, in truth, the the battle of development interests against more conservative, more cautious, more democratically-oriented citizen interests.
|
By Greg Kowalski
Thursday, May 15 2008, 01:16 PM
That's all I have to say.
Since the fiasco started, I've been periodically seeing Zizzo's IP address visiting my various blog entries. However, since the recent uproar with the NOW forum, JS articles, and recent Sykes/Belling discussion, Zizzo employees are apparently "stalking" the blog.
Proof in point:
adsl-76-***-***-***.dsl.milwwi.sbcglobal.net (Zizzo Group Inc The)
Texas, Plano, United States
While I'm flattered, I really wish these employees could do this type of research on their own personal time. I hope taxpayer dollars aren't paying for this. It makes me feel terrible for everyone in Franklin and Oak Creek.
|
By Greg Kowalski
Thursday, May 15 2008, 09:08 AM
That's the question I'm currently wondering about in regards to the closed session votes taken by both Franklin and Oak Creek on March 18th, 2008.
Some individuals and media outlets, like the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Mark Belling, allege that the votes were done illegally. Mark told his readers yesterday that someone should approach the District Attorney's office about this matter.
Others, including the City of Franklin's City Attorney, state that the votes were perfectly legal under the law. To support their position, they state that you can't vote on an item in open session if it would have made the whole point of going into closed session pointless.
Franklin resident and reader of this blog, Scott Thinnes, was kind enough to publish some of the 2007 Open Meetings Law Compliance Guide:
Wisconsin Open Meetings Law 2007 Compliance Guide
E. Voting In An Authorized Closed Session
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that Wis. Stat. § 14.90 (1959), a predecessor to the current open meetings law, authorized a governmental body to vote in closed session on matters that were the legitimate subject of deliberation in closed session. State ex rel. Cities S. O. Co. v. Bd. of Appeals, 21 Wis. 2d 516, 538, 124 N.W.2d 809 (1963). The supreme court reasoned that "voting is an integral part of deliberating and merely formalizes the result reached in the deliberating process." Id. at 539.
In Schaeve, 125 Wis. 2d at 53, the court of appeals commented on the propriety of voting in closed session under the current open meetings law. The court indicated that a governmental body must vote in open session unless an exemption in Wis. Stat. § 19.85(1) expressly authorizes voting in closed session. Id. The court's statement was not essential to its holding and it is unclear whether the supreme court would adopt a similar interpretation of the current open meetings law.
Given this uncertainty, the Attorney General advises that a governmental body vote in open session, unless the vote is clearly an integral part of deliberations authorized to be conducted in closed session under Wis. Stat. § 19.85(1). Stated another way, a governmental body should vote in open session, unless doing so would compromise the need for the closed session. Accord, Epping, 218 Wis. 2d at 524 n.4 (even if deliberations were conducted in an unlawful closed session, a subsequent vote taken in open session could not be voided).
None of the exemptions in Wis. Stat. § 19.85(1) authorize a governmental body to consider in closed session the ratification or final approval of a collective bargaining agreement negotiated by or for the body. Wis. Stat. § 19.85(3); 81 Op. Atty Gen. 139.
So I'm at a crossroads, and would like some clarification on the matter. So I did what any concerned citizen would do - I sent an e-mail to the Milwaukee County District Attorney's office regarding this matter.
May 14, 2008
To whom it may concern,
In the past couple weeks, the Cities of Franklin and Oak Creek have come under fire for voting on an item in closed session. The item was for approving of a name for a business district called Boomgaard. Radio talk show hosts and the Journal Sentinel are alleging that this vote may have violated WI state law regarding open meetings.
I am hoping that some clarification can be given. Otherwise, would there need to be a complaint filed for an investigation to begin?
Thank you for your time.
Gregory Kowalski
The response from the DA's office was this:
May 15, 2008
Dear Mr. Kowalski:
I write in response to your inquiry. In Milwaukee County, it is the Corporation Counsel's Office, not the District Attorney's Office, that handles matters involving open meetings law.
An email address for that office may be found by visiting www.milwaukeecounty.org and searching for Corporation Counsel; alternatively, their telephone number is 278-4300.
Thank you.
Sheila Stanelle
Senior Exec Asst to John Chisholm
Milwaukee County District Attorney
414-278-4653 phone
414-223-1955 fax
stanelle.sheila@mail.da.state.wi.us
Unfortunately the Corporation Counsel's webpage doesn't have an e-mail contact.
|
By Greg Kowalski
Wednesday, May 14 2008, 05:52 PM
Thanks to commenter Brett A and another reader wishing to be anonymous, I was directed toward Mark Belling's podcast of yesterday's show. Mark Belling also discussed the Boomgaard and advertising groups in general.
The Boomgaard discussion begins roughly 1/3 the way into the podcast.
Key points that Belling states about the Boomgaard are:
- The expert(s) (Zizzo) came back with a really stupid name.
- What does Boomgaard mean?
- How many people know that?
- What does that have to do with Franklin & Oak Creek?
- Oak Creek's vote in violation of Open Meetings Law
- Blatant violation
- Hope someone will prosecute
- You can't vote in secret
- No one has known and no one will ever know about orchards
- Some advice to Oak Creek and Franklin
- $370,000 on a PR firm when you have two Economic Development Directors is an abuse of taxpayers and a waste of money
- Hiring Zizzo to come up with branding after MU is stupid
- Normal people don't talk with words like Boomgaard. They don't do that. They use the kinds of names they put up on shopping malls - Mayfair, Bayshore, Southridge.
- Boomgaard sounds stupid.
- Paying $370,000 is stupid.
- Voting in closed session is stupid.
- Contact your officials and tell them to stop being stupid.
- If they keep the name Boomgaard it will forever be a joke.
- The public is not going to think of a Dutch word
- Boomgaard means NOTHING
- What does Dutch have to do with anything?
- Is the theme Dutch?
- Are Franklin and Oak Creek developing more orchards?
- Come up with something with what part of the community this is
- Don't copy Southgate, Southridge
- Come up with something that might draw attention to the region to what it is
- The Cities put incredible trust in ad firms/PR firms (Zizzo)
- Examples of faulty names by other ad/PR firms:
- You don't want to choose a name that's an object of ridicule
- They'd rather take a focus group of eight people and talk about it
- Refuse to acknowledge they made a mistake
- Communities: Make it clear you don't want the name due to ridicule
- KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid
- Other names that are in Milwaukee
- Bay View
- Bayshore
- Pabst Farms
- Historic Third Ward
- Mayfair
- North Shore
- Public reaction apparently isn't meaningful since they think they're smarter than we (the public) are - Zizzo is only focused on focus groups.
- What's the matter with both Cities for accepting this!?
Callers
- Jack in OC: Let me speak for the vast majority of those who live in Oak Creek: It's galacticly stupid!
I'll also note that Franklin's Common Council voted UNANIMOUSLY on the name in closed session as well on March 18th, 2008. Therefore, if the Journal Sentinel and Mark Belling state that Oak Creek violated the law, then Franklin officials did as well. Some residents I've spoken to have told me that State law provides reasoning for votes in closed session if (and ONLY if) coming out into open session would have made the closed session discussion pointless. Ultimately, I think this deserves to be decided on by the Milwaukee County District Attorney's office. I'm simply no longer comfortable sitting here and having credible sources on both sides defend their spots. In cases like this, that is why there is a District Attorney...to sort out the junk and make decisions.
FYI - Also check out my previous blog entry, which has Charlie Sykes going up against 27th Street Steering Committee Chairman Ted Grintjes. Sykes's show occurred this morning, Belling's was yesterday. I want to also extend my thanks to both radio talk show hosts if they received some information through this blog.
|
By Greg Kowalski
Wednesday, May 14 2008, 11:33 AM
While I rarely turn on talk radio, I needed to when I got phone calls from friends telling me that the Boomgaard was alive and well on Charlie Sykes!
When I turned it on, Charlie just took a call from Chairman Ted Grintjes. Unfortunately, it seems my little ounce of confidence that was injected in me after last night's Steering Committee meeting just vanished after what Ted told Charlie and the listeners on WTMJ.
- Boomgaard name is still alive until we do due diligence.
- We didn't spend $330,000 solely to name the corridor.
- Only $20,900...which is off from what he said last night ($29,500
- Sykes quickly took note: "WHOA...." (that's a ton of money)
- The Steering Committee liked the orchard theme
- The Committee thought about the name for 7 months
- Charlie was quick to exclaim: "7 months to come up with Boomgaard!?"
- We reserved 3 Boomgaard URLs
- People don't like it because...
- It's a foreign word
- They don't like change
- Mayor Bolender actually didn't bail out last night
- "That's just what a blogger says!"
- Kudos to Charlie Sykes for reading my blog and Ms. Evans blog last night and this morning while talking to Ted and callers.
Sykes was polite and cordial to Ted, only inserting humor where it was needed ("I still have some stationary Gold items for you if you want them!"), and when Ted hung up the phone Sykes was ready to continue his criticism.
"It's still a silly name!" Sykes stated. "Can you imagine the DVD!? Why does this corridor need a name?"
Then Sykes took callers:
- Todd from Franklin: "The people lost faith in the Committee. No one will tie Boomgaard to orchards."
- Tony from Oak Creek: "Northwestern Mutual and Wheaton didn't need a name to move there. Why do we need one now?"
- Muskego resident: "Congratulations, Franklin. You just surpassed Muskego as the #1 laughing stock in the area!"
- Tom via mobile phone: "I give you credit Charlie for not busting out laughing when you had that Committee guy on!"
- Joe from Oak Creek: "I applaud Mayor Dick (Bolender). The name is hilariously stupid!"
- Greg (not me): "It was a colossal waste of money."
- Marci via mobile phone: "I like the name. I work in a marketing firm, and it has marketing potential. It's easy to use in a variety of ways. It's fun and memorable! Look at the Budweiser frogs for example."
- Charlie quickly noted that Boomgaard is nothing like the Bud frogs, but instead more comparable to New Coke or the Edsel.
Almost every caller stated that the schools should have got involved in the name. Charlie quickly took the reins and offered the Steering Committee that he and his listeners could come up with a name for the corridor for only $5000, and that school district students could help with the name and/or logo for only $100 savings bonds. Then, Zizzo could be kind and refund the taxpayers of Franklin and Oak Creek for such an enormous gauging of our tax dollars.
Sykes also has the opinion that the Committee is stuck on Boomgaard because they like their Chairman so much. "The Committee doesn't want to offend Ted," Sykes opined. "Boomgaard is apparently only supposed to be a magnet for Dutch investment." To which Sykes indicated would appease the Dutch Chairman of the Committee, Ted Grintjes.
I stand with Charlie Sykes on this. I also noted last night that I was extremely disappointed that Grintjes & Co. are still looking at the business community and ONLY the business community for remarks on any name. It seems like repeating failed tactics remains strong in the 27th Street Steering Committee. Even though that was the gameplan when they selected Boomgaard, they still want to follow that post-public backlash.
It's shameful that they still ignore the public over this matter. I'd like to hear from elected officials on the recent coverage, so I'm hereby opening up this blog to ANY Franklin or Oak Creek Alderperson (including both Mayors) if they'd like to publish a guest blog on their Boomgaard stance. The people (which are remaining consistent in reading this blog) are awaiting your response.
|
By Greg Kowalski
Tuesday, May 13 2008, 08:10 PM
There was plenty to discuss from tonight's Steering Committee meeting. I'm glad that FranklinNOW blogger Janet Evans was there with her digital recorder and will be writing up an entry regarding this soon.
Chairman Ted Grintjes informed those in audience about the background to come up with the name Boomgaard. He stated the following was done to get the result we currently had:
- Name relevant to vision
- Spur economic development
- Reach out to international community
- The name must refer to both communities' backgrounds
- Appeal to domestic and international investors
- The name is to be unique
- Easy to find online
- Simple
- Used in day-to-day in conversation as an ice-breaker for business associates who work in the district (I'm from the Boomgaard...)
- Compliant to streetscape stakeholder input and studies.
The hero of the meeting tonight was Oak Creek Mayor Dick Bolender. He not only was very open and passionate in his response, but also very blunt and serious. Mayor Bolender made these key points:
- The name, in his situation, did not appeal
- He understands that he received a lot of criticism
- He's a team player - Franklin liked the name, and the Oak Creek Council could have been split forever. So in the spirit of keeping things moving he wanted to break the tie in favor.
- He believes now that we should be looking at this and if it doesn't sit right with the citizens this (keeping the name) would be a giant mistake.
- He mentions our children now and in the future
- Used as an example children texting to each other and that the name can be changed to several different names
- We could be making a giant mistake and this could be the dumbest thing we ever done if we decided to stick with this name and continue the mistake...
- He went against his better judgment...
- He never was for it but did it for the good of the group.
- Keeping the name in suspension is good, smart thinking, and if it's a failure we go to Plan B - and there's nothing wrong with that.
- "If it doesn't appeal, then it doesn't appeal."
Franklin Committee member Jim Rhiner didn't look amused over the thought, and he exchanged some words with Mayor Bolender over this. Rhiner's points were:
- Time - he's sick of things being "delayed, delayed, delayed"
- Wants a time barrier
- Is concerned about the name's effects on other matters of the project
- Cost - he wants to know if Zizzo will be going over their allotted $330,000 budget both cities approved if they work on a new name.
- Grintjes had no answer to this
Chairman Grintjes noted that there was no need to have a name before allowing Zizzo to work on the other marketing materials (DVD, website, printed paper, etc). Grintjes also suggested that the name be given 60-90 days for reconsideration. Thanks to Mayor Bolender, however, the name change could now be up to 120 days. Oak Creek Alderman Tom Michalski (a member of the Steering Committee) agreed on this timeframe.
So, ultimately the name Boomgaard isn't eliminated 100%. It's still there in the smallest form possible. Considering that just days ago they were staunchly on the Boomgaard's defense, I'm hoping that the Committee is beginning to listen to the public on the matter.
In saying the past sentence, it was unfortunate that when the word "opinion" was mentioned by Chairman Grintjes, "business" was before it. I'd like to continue to encourage this Committee to rethink that, and include public input - meaning the regular citizens of Oak Creek and Franklin.
Hopefully the "new day" continues onward. Also to be noted: Mayor Tom Taylor of Franklin was noteably absent from the meeting. I was glad to see newly elected Alderwoman Kristen Wilhelm present, though.
|
By Greg Kowalski
Tuesday, May 13 2008, 08:28 AM
I was planning to do this today, but I see Zach over at Blogging Blue already did it.
He e-mailed Mayor Bolender of Oak Creek for clarification, and maybe some answers, in regards to Boomgaard.
Zach tells us:
What I can't help but wonder is why Mayor Bolender voted in favor of a name he wasn't absolutely sold on, and what's more, I can't help but wonder why he voted in favor of a name he didn't fully support, given the fact that hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent coming up with the name. I've emailed Mayor Bolender for clarification on why he voted in favor of the Boomgaard if he wasn't fully convinced it was the right choice for the 27th Street corridor, and hopefully he'll have a good answer, because his comments voicing his concern about the name - which come after the public has reacted negatively to the name - seem to fly in the face of his vote in favor of the name.
|
By Greg Kowalski
Tuesday, May 13 2008, 12:00 AM
Thanks to Alderman Olson, the bloggers received a copy of the Joint 27th Street Steering Committee meeting agenda, which will be held this afternoon at 4pm @ Oak Creek City Hall.
The agenda is as follows:
* Agenda amended 5/12/08
- Call to Order and Roll Call
- Citizen Comment Period
- Meeting Minutes - April 18, 2008
- Business
- Payment to HNTB Corporation - Development of branding and marketing for the South 27th Street Corridor (February 23, 2008, through March 28, 2008): $29,254.24. *
- Marketing, branding, positioning, and public relations activities for the South 27th Street Corridor Plan Area. This item may include, but not be limited to, a review of the selected corridor name and logo alternatives.
- Meetings with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation relating to streetscape improvements for the South 27th Street corridor, and next steps in the design of streetscape improvements.
V. Next meeting date(s) and location(s)
VI. Adjournment
Hmmm...interesting notes I got here.
- Why was the agenda just updated yesterday? Furthermore, the updated item just happens to be for a payment to HNTB.
- FYI: HNTB is the main contractor, which I'm guessing will be handling the payments to Zizzo Group...the subcontractor under HNTB's control of the Corridor project.
- I'm guessing the item relating to "marketing, branding, positioning, etc, etc" has to do with the Boomgaard name being scrutinized by the public. This shall be an interesting discussion, especially when I already know both members of Franklin's representation will defend this name until they resign. I expect excuses and tons of material tossed out to "convince" the public to shut up and accept the name as it is.
OK, now to a bigger opinion of mine.
Personally, I find it silly that Mayor Taylor wants the Steering Committee to look over this again. Nothing's official, but the drift is present. With that noted, I don't understand how the Steering Committee, which supports Boomgaard 125%, is truly going to listen to public and media criticism of Boomgaard and make an "effort" to get the name changed. I might get criticized over this, but I don't have very much confidence in our unelected representatives on the Committee to take this criticism and then sit down and craft up a new name. As far as I'm concerned, it's a conflict of interest on the philosophical level. The Committee members had the philosophy (and thoughts) that Boomgaard would do great and have minimal opposition. It backfired, and I'm sure some feelings were hurt in the process...theirs.
Anyways...speaking of them sitting down and crafting new names...why are we doing the same thing all over again? I think new direction needs to be implemented on this matter, and the public needs more input than the original plan.
Sending this back to Steering Committee is a big mistake. The public needs our elected officials on this matter, not the Steering Committee. The Councils need to sit down and think of a new method in getting a name for the corridor. My apologies to Zizzo Group - but you guys shouldn't have been focusing on naming things to begin with. That would have saved the taxpayers quite an amount of money, no offense (again) to Zizzo.
|
By Greg Kowalski
Monday, May 12 2008, 05:30 AM
If the political realm in Franklin and Oak Creek is normal, I think we can easily declare that the Boomgaard is dead in the water. The Zizzo/Grintjes/Steering Committee plan to do this without much (or any) public visibilty backfired. The case should be closed.
FranklinNOW blogger Janet Evans summed it up quite magnificently in regards to the Boomgaard:
The Zizzo Group may believe the name Bomgaard will grow on the community, but I don't think so. At best, it will just be somewhat forgotten. But the taste will be left behind, which won't be that of mom's all-American apple pie. You see, citizens who care about their community don't take it lightly when they aren't heard by their elected officials or when they are given the shaft, in general. That's when they talk the most. They'll remember it again at election time, though. That's when they get the final word.
Franklin blogger Fred Keller did a fine job in explaining why this is so important:
The Joint South 27th Street Steering Committee badly misjudged citizen-interest in the naming process for the South 27th Street Corridor. This miscalculation became immediately apparent to anyone with a nano-ounce of common sense when FranklinlinNOW.com published a story announcing that the joint development would be known as the "Boomgaard District."
Had officials on the Joint Steering Committee and Zizzo Group representatives engaged the communities of Franklin and Oak Creek in the naming process from the outset, how different would the events of the past couple of weeks have been? Your guess is as good as mine, but I'm confident that the Joint Steering Committee's self-inflicted damage to this project would have been completely avoided.
Instead, an arrogant, narcissistic Committee decided to circumvent those who will ultimately foot the bill for the Zizzo Group's marketing and public relations efforts; the Franklin and Oak Creek taxpayers.
FranklinNOW blogger Bryan Maersch provides a good reason why we can't trust our own Joint 27th Street Steering Committee:
The berating of a Franklin Citizen who disagrees with Ted and his committee members leads me to believe that Ted does not realize that this was just outright bad PR for the 27th street project. One can only assume it was his many hours of time he spends on these committee / commissions that set Ted off.
Fred Keller had no intention of standing up to defend his opinion and information he presented asresearch he discovered about the Boomgaard District's redlight reputation in Amsterdam. But how could he not respond to Ted's intentional verbal attack on this private Franklin citizen?
Ted Grintjes has done something that is destructive to his committee; he has brought further bad public relations to a public relations fiasco brought about by the naming of the Boomgaard District via the Zizzo group who handeled the annoucement badly.
Ted - You needed to turn this around to become positive public opinion but now have instead blown up this public relations disaster even further.
Cindy Kilkenny of Fairly Conservative asks the question:
If someone doesn't slap Franklin's hand for this obvious abuse of closed session, your government will be doing more public business behind closed doors under the guise of "public good."
Where's the outrage?
Oak Creek officials, some of which voted NO from the get-go, are gobbling this up and are prepped to take action. The citizen forum just keeps getting larger. I expect that will never cease until the people finally see some action going in their favor. The bloggers, I'm proud to say, are ensuring the public gets 100% informed on the matter. One of the best things about bloggers is the fact that we can take things from a citizen perspective, with many of the bloggers having no strings attached.
With this in mind, my fellow readers, expect the big giant heads in Franklin to pull out every last straw to ensure the Boomgaard name sticks. It's already starting, with the man that has strong connections in City Hall talking the "T" word - taxes (Do you really want to start all over and give the Zizzo Group six more months and pay them to come up with something else that could be even less desirable than "Boomgaard?") that is. Through him, they're also throwing in the business climate and our reputations as other reasons why people need to shut up about this.
I imagine we could reconsider this whole mess, toss Boomgaard out, and try to come up with something else. While that might lead some to pop open the champagne, it would also send a message to the business community and others that we really don't have a clue as to what we're doing.
Yeah, perhaps our public officials...err...I mean citizen volunteers with too much power, really DON'T know what they're doing. I don't give free passes to incompetence, and I'm sure almost all of America's workplaces share that sentiment. If they don't, why should a community? It's not MY fault that THEY, the big giant heads in Franklin who make decisions in closed session, don't know what they're doing.
As far as I'm concerned, the Aldermen who voted on the spending for this marketing and voted on the name in closed session should be thanking their butts that there are no recall petitions going around for signatures. When the public gets screwed, don't expect them to continue on rolling out the red carpet.
People want to "send it back" when it comes to this project? Guess what? This entire project may have been sent back because we used too much tunnel vision instead of thinking about the big picture.
No, the entire project isn't sent back...and the public isn't asking for the entire corridor plans to go away. No offense, but this is quite a ridiculous statement. Where's the logic in it? Soooo...because the public doesn't like what our big giant heads picked for the name of OUR corridor, they're threatening to scrap the entire thing? I remember my little sisters pulling similar stunts when they were 2 or 3 years old and didn't get their Tickle Me Elmos before Christmas.
If the Steering Committee members don't want to continue serving the residents of Franklin and Oak Creek over this Boomgaard snafu, that's fine with me. I'm sure there are plenty others willing to take their positions. Veiled threats to the public is truly unacceptable.
My short summary of the last ditch efforts: Pathetic and pitiful.
|
By Greg Kowalski
Saturday, May 10 2008, 11:17 PM
At last Tuesday's Common Council meeting, it was very clear how residents felt about trails; they don't like them in their backyards.
Two groups from both sides of the city presented their cases in front of the Council - one group was opposed to the proposed Cascade Creek Trail, and the other is opposed to the extension of the St. Martins Trail. Both have noted that their support is growing, and both groups don't plan to disband anytime soon.
Since it's very clear that these neighborhoods don't want to see trails, I ask the city to formulate something else with the impact fees that would have been used on the trails. When I went to the Cascade Creek public hearing 2 months ago, a resident opposed to the trail approached Alderman Solomon (rep for Parks Commission) and asked him to put the fees for the trail towards sidewalks for 51st Street in front of Franklin High School. I agree with this thought as well.
Instead of continuing the push for trails that no one wants, let's work on giving our children the ability to walk to/from school instead of taking the bus. I propose making Franklin a safer community for our children by constructing sidewalks around our schools, and using the impact fees for this. It saves lives and promotes exercise for our youth. Anything to get our children outside and to connect neighbors and neighborhoods is a plus for Franklin. Perhaps these new sidewalks could help Franklin Public Schools out by eliminating bus routes, which are roughly $25,000/route according to what I heard at the School Board's Committee of the Whole meeting. Hey - tax savings!
So c'mon Franklin, let's get that new gameplan started.
|
By Greg Kowalski
Saturday, May 10 2008, 01:51 AM
Today's Journal Sentinel is reporting that Mayor Bolender seems to be joining Alderwoman Dimity Grabowski.
"I want it changed," said Oak Creek Mayor Dick Bolender, who broke a 3-3 Common Council tie in favor of the name during a closed session in March - an apparent violation of state open meetings law - though he insists he was never enamored of the choice.
"My heart wasn't in it then, and it's not in it now," he said.
As for Mayor Taylor of Franklin, I can't say such positive remarks. All I'm left with is extreme disappointment and dissatisfaction. As one of his supporters in the past, this has left a bad mark with me. It's apparent now that Mayor Taylor was trying to keep the public silent, and is still reaching out to his buddies Ted Grintjes and Jim Rhiner. It looks like Ted and Jim's support means more to Tom than the overwhelming public hate of this name.
Elected officials say it's more than that. They have taken their share of calls from angry and baffled residents. But not everyone's ready to pull the plug.
"I'm not there yet," said Franklin Mayor Tom Taylor, who plans to send the issue back to the city's steering committee.
For some Franklin leaders, it seems to be hard to pull back when you put so much blind faith in your business associates.
Mayor Bolender wants it yanked. Alderwoman Grabowski seems to share these concerns. The people of Franklin want it GONE. As far as I'm concerned, the Boomgaard was just dealt it's death blow. The only individuals backing this seem to be Ted Grintjes, Jim Rhiner, and Mayor Tom Taylor. Of which I have a message for him:
Mayor Taylor, I hope you get the clue - get the name out of here, and out of here NOW.
Furthermore, it seems the Journal Sentinel is hinting to the residents of Franklin and Oak Creek - the closed session votes might have been illegal. Perhaps Cindy Kilkenny was right...
|
By Greg Kowalski
Friday, May 9 2008, 06:00 PM
If you haven't checked out the Journal Sentinel video by Jim Stingl, please do by following this link. It's really funny, and it continues my doubts that a majority (a silent one, at that) supports the Boomgaard - like Mayor Taylor told me last night.
Speaking of Mayor Taylor's conversation with me, I spoke with some sources on the matter. They told me that what Mayor Taylor Is currently feeding the public, through me, is presently not 100% factual. Mayor Taylor hasn't made anything "official" yet on the city level. So basically, we're getting a false sense of reassurance. As far as I'm concerned, Mayor Taylor told me what he did for two reasons:
- He will be working to get the name back to the Steering Committee, or
- He was trying to "give the public what they want" - but not really. By doing that, it could have paved the road that was pretty bumpy and it just might have ensured his allies in the Boomgaard Brotherhood that they could keep the name after all.
I can only guess the real intent of the Mayor's words to me last night. I'm not one that enjoys riddles, or being "Boomgaarded" for that matter, especially when it comes to issues I'm passionate about.
Either this Council will listen to the public and take the issue up, or they won't. I expect an official decision to be made in the coming days.
So far, we do know these things as fact:
- The Journal Sentinel did a video on the Boomgaard, in a rather funny (but telling) manner, and will be doing a story on it as well. A reporter from the JS was on the phone with me yesterday for approx. 45 minutes with the Boomgaard.
- Alderwoman Dimity Grabowski seems to be working on her end of things to get something done in Oak Creek. From her words, it looks like she'll be discussing this matter with Mayor Bolender in the coming days, and I have the confidence that she'll keep us informed when anything comes out on her end.
- This blog still continues to receive a similar amount of unique and repeat visitors. This tells me that the public is NOT going away on this matter, and I thank you all for keeping this blog as a source of news in regards to the Boomgaard. This should send a clear message to Zizzo, the Steering Committee, and both Councils: The public is waiting for your move...
|
By Greg Kowalski
Thursday, May 8 2008, 10:27 PM
I just got done talking with Mayor Taylor about the Boomgaard matter. Alderwoman Dimity Grabowski's e-mail definitely had an impact. Due to the hint of the Oak Creek Alderwoman possibly putting the Boomgaard item on the Oak Creek Common Council's agenda, Mayor Taylor sent the name back to the 27th Street Steering Committee. Tom also noted that Mayor Bolender of Oak Creek has agreed on this too.
With this announcement, the Mayor shared his concern about the blogs taking a negative turn. He used the word "gay bashing" in reference to what he's hearing from some residents. I stand on the philosophy that any future discussion on this blog in regards to rumors of any kind of red light district must have plenty of evidence backing it up. My main points are tax dollars spent, public input, and rediscussion of the matter since there has been such negative feedback online.
Another note would have to be the Mayor pulling out his infamous quote,
"There is another side to this. A significant amount (majority) supports the name."
I responded candidly:
"If that's the case, send em my way!"
So far the blogs and the NOW forum have not received many positive responses to the name. As one of the bloggers noted in the past, if there is support, it's real silent online. Also, whenever I talk to people about this item, I still don't hear positive remarks.
The Mayor believes we are not in a Democracy, but rather in a Republic. If 33,000 people had a say in everything, the system would be jammed, according to Mayor Taylor. The public should feel comfortable with their elected officials in making decisions for them. My belief on this is simple, and I expressed it to the Mayor. If the public can get involved on the 27th Street Streetscaping plan, they would most likely get involved in the naming process.
What's amusing to me is the fact that the Steering Committee states that there were plenty of meetings with public comments allowed (citizen comment period), nobody spoke. Well, as a resident of Franklin (and rather in the know about some things), I didn't even know we were in the naming process. As far as I'm concerned, if I didn't know about it, I'm sure not a lot of others did either. As far as I know, the naming process was mostly done within closed session with the Steering Committee. If it wasn't done like that, then why did both Councils need to vote on the name in closed session?
Ultimately, I think this matter needs to still come before the Councils. I don't think I can place 100% trust in the Steering Committee members anymore. There has been too much crap going on for me to feel uneasy with the concept of review by the Steering Committee, which turns out to be a 4 member group - 2 from each community. Furthermore, the 2 members representing Franklin are unelected, which brings up more issues with me.
That's my comments for now.
|
By Greg Kowalski
Thursday, May 8 2008, 08:23 PM
Right now discussion is on a special use for the Dairy Queen Grill & Chill at Fountains of Franklin. This had a public hearing before full discussion took place, and some residents, including Serenity Estates resident (and I believe HOA President) Scott Lund spoke. The discussion was to include everything from architecture to plants to any other concern.
Before residents spoke, no one saw the architectural renderings for the DQ. We were told confidently by one of the Balistreris that it would match Sendik's in almost every way, and that Sendik's in Franklin got a prestigious nod by a magazine (which he displayed).
Public hearing came and went.
When the Plan Commission discussed this, City Engineer Jack Bennett noted (before any motion was made),
"Is this IT for them? Will they have to come back for anything else?"
Good question. Alderman Ken Skowronski noted that we didn't see any actual renderings of the DQ or other stores proposed as Sendik's West.
Well, well...out of nowhere Greg Devorkin (the developer of this) tells the Commission he has the renderings and whips them out for Commissioners. I quickly noted residents sighing and rolling their eyes in disbelief. It was a sneaky moment for developer Devorkin - he kept the rendering from being discussed in the public hearing, and was actually expecting approved from the Plan Commission without a single glance at it. Personally, I found that quite a dirty tactic, since residents cannot speak about it now - public hearing is done with.
But hey - it's just another day in Franklin as far as I'm concerned.
|
By Greg Kowalski
Thursday, May 8 2008, 07:21 PM
Kevin Haley is not present at the meeting.
While he surely could be sick, according to the City of Franklin website, he's not even on the Plan Commission roster anymore!
Did Mayor Taylor kick him off? If so, what was the reason?
|
By Greg Kowalski
Wednesday, May 7 2008, 05:41 PM
I was flattered, to put it candidly, that a member of the Oak Creek Common Council responded to the Boomgaard issue.
Earlier today, I e-mailed Dimity Grabowski, of Oak Creek's 5th Aldermanic District:
Hi Dimity,
I'm currently doing a lot of work in regards to the name Boomgaard and have heard plenty on Franklin's side. I was wondering if you could give me a different perspective.
Thanks,
-Greg
She responded to my e-mail quickly and definitely gave me a perspective:
Hi Greg,
Thanks for taking the time to e-mail me, and get a different view point on this "hot" issue!!
I have received several phone calls and e-mails on the naming for the 27th Street Corridor -"Boomgaard". It is, indeed, a very unique name, I have to admit!!!
It is my understanding that the Zizzo Group, Mayors, City Administrators, and Alderpersons who represent the 2nd & 6th District (Oak Creek side) along with the Joint South 27th Street Steering Committee gave this area the "BOOMGAARD" name.
I do question the fact that the "Dutch" name Boomgaard supposedly has significant ties to both communities. It was my understanding that Oak Creek primarily had immigrant settlers - German and Polish, not Dutch!
I anticipate having discussions with the our Mayor in regards to the above...... that's about all I can say about it, for now.......
Dimity Grabowski
Once again, thank you for your response.
|
By Greg Kowalski
Wednesday, May 7 2008, 10:06 AM
Good thing I brought along my laptop last night!
I didn't think Boomgaard was going to be brought up last night. I personally didn't speak at citizen comment period because I'd like to believe our officials will do something about this matter in upcoming meetings.
But hey, some people do care about this matter and brought it up even while knowing the Council couldn't discuss it (read my last blog entry with me wondering why).
Franklin resident Darlene Collins was at City Hall tonight to discuss the St. Martins Trail (much more on trails in a future blog entry), but ended her speech by going the way of the Boomgaard:
"I don't want a homosexual Red Light District in Franklin!" - to smirks and laughs in the filled Council chambers.
Lo and behold, 27th Street Steering Committee Chairman Ted Grintjes was in the audience. I'm guessing he was there because he was suspecting the Boomgaard to be mentioned, and it was. Ted got up and spoke about the "homosexual Red Light District" matter and seemed to be rather angry, quickly criticizing Darlene for mentioning this and dubbing it "outrageous."
Then Ted noted he made contact with these connections:
-
Relatives (he's Dutch and lived in the Netherlands)
-
Amsterdam's Tourism Bureau
-
The University of Amsterdam
-
Business associates who have Amsterdam connections
-
The Zizzo Group (to which I'm guessing tax dollars were spent with this)
All of these noted to Ted that there was no such connection between gay/homosexual districts and Boomgaard in Amsterdam or the Netherlands. With this in tone he noted that enormous amounts of research was done on this, to the sighs of some individuals around me.
Lastly, Ted turned and began talking directly to Franklin blogger Fred Keller, who is spearheading this issue along with other bloggers in Franklin, Oak Creek, and the metropolitan area. Ted calls Fred's statements "false accusations," and Fred and Ted began sharing words...to which the Mayor had to intervene about 3 times and remind them that the Mayor is in charge of the meeting, and that they should talk to him. Ted also noted that an article that Fred quotes the Boomgaard in it was a name of an author, not a district.
So with Ted done with his criticism of Fred and Darlene, he sits down....and up comes Fred.
Fred made some rather simple points and I share his comments:
-
Most of what Ted said was true, but twisted - said Boomgaard was still mentioned in there as a district
-
He's doing his own research on this
-
If we didn't have a Dutch name of Boomgaard we wouldn't be in this conversation
-
We spent $370,000 on what? (Actually $330,000 was approved to spend)
-
He has a Dutch doctor (to laughs) who notes that Boomgaard doesn't even mean "apple orchard"
-
What is Zizzo doing with our money?
-
He doesn't really care about Rhiner's blow up about Fred's criticism of the name Zizzo - didn't know that was a family name
-
He doesn't need to take crud (I'll say crap) from them
...and
My personal observations:
-
The Chairman is Dutch, openly admitted on public record he knows more of Amsterdam than Milwaukee, and the darn name for the corridor he chairs just happens to be Dutch? C'mon! I need to say this: Is all of what we know now simply coincidence or what the heck is truly going on?
-
The people aren't taking this lightly. It's ridiculous, and for Aldermen to say "it's only a name" isn't flying. The name will be everywhere and will be visible, and people will be puzzled as to what that means.
-
Why are we paying Zizzo to do research that citizens can do for free? That steering committee members can do for free? If Aldermen state we're in a "recession," then we should be a little more frugal on this
-
I don't understand our leaders. It seems they've been expecting negative feedback, since they're brushing this off so well. From information I heard, Zizzo is telling our leaders to sit on it for weeks with the hope of the public going away and to put it bluntly, shutting up. That's not fair to the constituency of Franklin as far as I'm concerned.
UPDATE 5/7: When doing some research into the name Boomgaard, I discovered that whenever I was translating Dutch sentences that had Boomgaard in it, Boomgaard would only translate to simply "orchards." While apple trees can be in orchards, it doesn't fully mean "apple orchards."
...and that's all I got!
|
By Greg Kowalski
Wednesday, May 7 2008, 09:19 AM
Franklin's leaders need to become more visionary and need to begin thinking about the near future. The public is becoming more aware, which is driving some groups, like the Boomgaard Brotherhood, completely bananas. As far as I see it, I don't care about panicking a few Aldermen because the people want a more open government.
In Brookfield, Alderman Scott Berg is attempting to slowly open the transparency door. He is proposing that all Council packets sent to Brookfield Aldermen be posted on the City's website.
Granted, Cindy Kilkenny asks why it still can't be done for free since Berg posts the packets on his site, but it can be difficult for everyone in Brookfield to know that Alderman Berg has a website. With his suggestion, all Brookfield residents would simply have to go to their city's website and read away. That's a lot easier and simpler to do, and everyone should know that website.
Franklin is still in the middle of the fight to keep the public not shutout of some big items - like development and the growth of our community. We still use cassette tapes to do our recordings for public meetings. Our website is still not fully up to snuff, no matter how many Technology Commissioners (or their Aldermanic rep) say it kicks some serious butt.
So when will Franklin be willing enough to propose putting up Council packets on our website? Time will tell, but I'd hope this happens soon!
| |
